Head injury is the most serious type of injury sustained in motorcycle

Question

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.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the author's conclusion concerning helmets for horseback riders depend?

(A) Medical care for victims of horseback-riding accidents is financial drain on tax funds.

(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.

(C) The medical costs associated with treating head injuries are higher than those for other types of injury.

(D) Most fatalities resulting from horseback-riding and motorcycle accidents could have been prevented if the victims had been wearing helmets.

(E) When deciding whether to enact helmet laws for motorcyclists and horseback riders, the jurisdiction's primary concerns is the safety of its citizens.

Source: LSAT

saicharan1191 · Answer

Nice question. I guess answer should be A because reducing tax burden is the primary agenda of the argument.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

US09 · Answer

Narrowed it down to A and D. But chose A, since negating A completely breaks down the conclusion that law requiring pillion riders wearing helmet will reduce the medical costs. D does nothing to the conclusion related with reduction of costs.

syedazeem3 · Answer

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?

Posted from my mobile device

Damion123 · Answer

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.  GMATNinja   mikemcgarry

AkshdeepS · Answer

Close call between A and D. I opted for D ; a wrong choice.

Rishovnits · Answer

(A) Medical care for victims of horseback-riding accidents is financial drain on tax funds.....  Since the conclusion says that "Therefore, to achieve similar cost reductions, other jurisdictions should enact motorcycle-helmet laws.", the author assumes that the current cost to taxpayer for head injuries related to horse riding is high. Hence, this answer fits the required assumption.

(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.  This answer is out of scope since nothing is mentioned about it in the paragraph.

(C) The medical costs associated with treating head injuries are higher than those for other types of injury..  This answer is out of scope as we are not comparing the medical cost of treating head injuries with other type of injuries.

(D) Most fatalities resulting from horseback-riding and motorcycle accidents could have been prevented if the victims had been wearing helmets.  Well the paragraph does not mention anything about fatalities but only about serious head injuries. Hence, this is an out of scope answer choice.
 
(E) When deciding whether to enact helmet laws for motorcyclists and horseback riders, the jurisdiction's primary concerns is the safety of its citizens.  I doubt if this answer choice is correct because in the complete paragraph, some focus has also been made on reducing cost to tax payers. This answer choice can be eliminated.

IMO A

GMATNinja · Answer

This question asks: Let's revisit the argument and break it all down! 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: 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. 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. 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. 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). 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?)

saurabh9gupta · Answer

A good question indeed. I took a complete 2.5 minute to solve this question.

The main point is that for assumption question, one would need to negate the answer choices. I did the same on A.

poor · Answer

Tie back with the text in Question - Cost to taxpayers

unraveled · Answer

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 .

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the author's conclusion concerning helmets for horseback riders depend?

(A) Medical care for victims of horseback-riding accidents is  financial drain on tax funds . - CORRECT. Cost reductions in the conclusion equates to financial drain in this choice.

(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. - WRONG. The aspect covered in this choice is covered in the passage as the reasoning for the conclusion it makes. So, this misses the target slightly.

(C) The medical costs associated with treating head injuries are higher than those for  other types of injury . - WRONG. May be true but does not impacts the conclusion. Other injuries in not covered in the passage.

(D) Most fatalities resulting from horseback-riding and motorcycle accidents  could have been prevented if  the victims had been wearing helmets. - WRONG. Out of scope. Real life situation that looks good but the passage conclusion is not about this.

(E) When deciding whether to enact helmet laws for motorcyclists and horseback riders, the jurisdiction's  primary concerns is the safety of its citizens . - WRONG. Concern is out of scope.

Answer A.

ClaireCHEN · Answer

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the author's conclusion concerning helmets for horseback riders depend?

Regulations for helmets will reduce head injuries >> the tax cost will be reduced

(A) Medical care for victims of horseback-riding accidents is financial drain on tax funds. -- Yes, or else no need for regulations

(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're not talking about why the rates are higher

(C) The medical costs associated with treating head injuries are higher than those for other types of injury. -- We're not talking about which costs are higher

(D) Most fatalities resulting from horseback-riding and motorcycle accidents could have been prevented if the victims had been wearing helmets. -- We're talking about head injuries rather than fatalities

(E) When deciding whether to enact helmet laws for motorcyclists and horseback riders, the jurisdiction's primary concerns is the safety of its citizens. -- It's tax as mentioned

Head injury is the most serious type of injury sustained in motorcycle

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Head injury is the most serious type of injury sustained in motorcycle

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards