ajaygaur319 wrote:
Fatalities in road accidents are typically directly proportional to the number of road accidents in a country. In Bumbletown, the number of road accidents last year has increased by 15% compared to the year before. Clearly, the number of fatalities can be expected to increase by a similar proportion. However, government officials claim that the number of fatalities last year actually decreased compared to the year before.
Which of the following, if true, does most to justify the government officials’ claim?
(A) Last year, out of all passengers that travelled on road, the proportion of passengers wearing a seat belt has been significantly higher than the year before.
(B) Last year, there was a significant increase in the sales of the Government-approved safety guidelines book “How to drive safely to avoid an accident”.
(C) The proportion of emergency medical personnel in the country has increased last year.
(D) Most of the road accidents last year were between the recently introduced self-driving cargo-carriers that were doing test runs without any human involvement.
(E) There has been a consistent decrease in the number of fatalities in road accidents over a five-year period before last year.
Hi
GMATNinja KarishmaB MartyTargetTestPrepCould you please explain why Option A is incorrect and Option D is correct?
My thinking in selecting Option A was - that if the proportion of passengers wearing a seat belt was higher last year then fatalities should decrease. By general knowledge, seat belts reduce serious injuries, so passengers who have accidents will likely have fewer injuries and, hence, fewer fatalities.
Is A wrong because we don't know if people who met with accidents were not a part of the proportion who wore seat belts?
For ex: 35 out of 100 wore seat belts the year before last year, and 55 out of 100 wore belts last year, maybe people who had accidents last year were mainly from the remaining 45 out of 100, hence, the possibility for fatalities remains and doesn't explain the paradox in the argument.
Option D is wrong - "without any human involvement" doesn't necessarily mean that no human is present on the seat other than the driver seat. Ideally, self-driving cargo carriers will have no driver but other passengers should be present on different seats so these passengers will have serious injuries/fatalities during collisions.
Is this assumption the only mistake behind my elimination?
Please let me know if something is wrong here in my thoughts.