rohansdalal wrote:
I chose C over A bcz I thought Option A is more generic. Argument is about Head Injury caused by Horse Riding and Motor Cycle and option A says: A) Medical care for victims of horseback-riding accidents is financial drain on tax funds. No where Head injury specifically mentioned.
However verbal expert can help to correct my understanding : Can we assume that Argument is talking about all type of injuries. Be it head injury, hand injury, leg injury. So Medical care for all such type injuries ( head injury, hand injury, leg injury) will be financial drain on tax funds. Hence with this approach, option A looks better answer.
Pl help to correct the understanding.
syedazeem3 wrote:
I chose C because if there is another type of injury that would cost more, the helmet wouldn’t really be he best way to reduce costs. Is there an explanation for each answer choice?
This question asks:
Quote:
Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the author's conclusion concerning helmets for horseback riders depends?
Let's revisit the argument and break it all down!
Quote:
Head injury is the most serious type of injury sustained in motorcycle accidents. The average cost to taxpayers for medical care for nonhelmeted motorcycle-accident victims is twice that for their helmeted counterparts. Jurisdictions that have enacted motorcycle-helmet laws have reduced the incidence and severity of accident-related head injuries, thereby reducing the cost to taxpayers. Therefore, to achieve similar cost reductions, other jurisdictions should enact motorcycle-helmet laws. For the same reason jurisdictions should also require helmets for horseback riders, since horseback-riding accidents are even more likely to cause serious head injury than motorcycle accidents are.
The argument has two conclusions:
1. Jurisdictions should require helmets for motorcyclists, in order to achieve cost reductions.
2. Jurisdictions should require helmets for horseback riders, for the same reason it requires helmets for motorcyclists (to achieve cost reductions).
We're only asked about conclusion #2, but let's walk through the logic of the entire argument:
- The average cost of medical care for non-helmeted motorcycle-accident victims is 2x that of care for helmeted victims.
- Jurisdictions that have required motorcycle helmets have reduced the incidence and severity of accident-related head injuries.
- Reducing the incidence and severity of accident-related head injuries has resulted in reduced cost to taxpayers.
- Therefore, to achieve cost reductions, other jurisdictions should also require motorcyclists to wear helmets.
- Horse-back riding accidents are even more likely to cause serious head injuries than motorcycle accidents are.
- Therefore, to achieve cost reductions, jurisdictions should also require horseback riders to wear helmets.
We have a very clear chain of logic to justify the author's first conclusion. Caring for non-helmeted motorcycle accident victims is expensive. When jurisdictions require motorcycle helmets, we see the incidence and severity of accident-related head injuries fall. We also see the associated costs fall. Therefore, enacting motorcycle helmet laws in other jurisdictions should result in similar cost reductions in those jurisdictions.
The logical leap to requiring helmets for horseback riders doesn't give us that nice, concrete bridge to walk (gallop?) across with the author. Most importantly, we don't have any information about how much horseback riders (helmeted or not) cost taxpayers when their heads are injured. We do know that head injuries suffered during horseback riding accidents are more likely to be severe, but there's not a single word linking that severity to cost.
It's incredibly tempting to just replace "motorcycle" with "horseback" in our brains (definitely true in my daily life). But
none of these connections are spelled out for horseback riders. So when reviewing the answer choices, we want to keep the one that best fills in the blanks. Let's get to it:
Quote:
(A) Medical care for victims of horseback-riding accidents is financial drain on tax funds.
Bingo! This is a simple,
explicit confirmation that caring for horseback accident victims is costly to taxpayers.
The argument is still focused on head injuries, but we can accept that "medical care" for these victims refers to care for all kinds of injuries, including head injuries. So we don't need to change our understanding of the argument to keep (A) around. The language is still targeted enough to bridge gaps between being horseback-riding accidents, injury, and cost to taxpayers.
Quote:
(B) The higher rate of serious head injury suffered by victims of horseback-riding accidents is due to the difference in size between horses and motorcycles.
We don't care about
why horseback accident victims suffer serious head injuries. The argument for motorcycle helmets is made to achieve cost reductions, and the argument for horseback helmets is made "for the same reason." (B) doesn't address cost at all, so let's eliminate it.
Quote:
(C) The medical costs associated with treating head injuries are higher than those for other types of injury.
This choice compares the cost of treating head injuries
in general to the cost of treating other types of injuries
in general. This is extremely broad, and more importantly it's the wrong comparison. We're looking for information that lets us compare the costs of injuries from horseback accidents to the costs of injuries from motorcycle accidents. Knowing that both types of injuries cost more than, say, stubbing your toe, is relatively useless when it comes to filling out the specific argument that we care about.
Also keep in mind that (A) is much more concrete in the way it creates the connection between horseback riding injuries and cost. It's a great answer choice. This one? Not so much. So we'll keep (A), eliminate (C), and move on.
Quote:
(D) Most fatalities resulting from horseback-riding and motorcycle accidents could have been prevented if the victims had been wearing helmets.
Neither conclusion depends on this assumption to be valid. The conclusions focus on costs created when motorcycle and horseback riders are injured in accidents, not on the rate of death in these accidents. Eliminate (D).
Quote:
(E) When deciding whether to enact helmet laws for motorcyclists and horseback riders, the jurisdiction's primary concerns is the safety of its citizens.
Both conclusions are explicitly concerned with cost to taxpayers, not the safety of citizens. It may be harsh, but for this reason we eliminate (E).
(A) remains the best choice available. I'd ride off into sunset, but I don't have a helmet. (I'm practicing my dad jokes. Pretty bad, right?)
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @
www.gmatninja.com (
hiring!) |
YouTube |
Articles |
IG Beginners' Guides:
RC |
CR |
SC |
Complete Resource Compilations:
RC |
CR |
SC YouTube LIVE webinars:
all videos by topic +
24-hour marathon for UkraineQuestion Explanation Collections:
RC |
CR |
SC