In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile accidents are typically more severe than in Europe, where laws require a different kind of safety belt. It is clear from this that the United States needs to adopt more stringent standards for safety belt design to protect automobile passengers better.
IMO.... D

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:

(A) Europeans are more likely to wear safety belts than are people in the United States. - Weakens

(B) Unlike United States drivers, European drivers receive training in how best to react in the event of an accident to minimize injuries to themselves and to their passengers. - Weakens

(C) Cars built for the European market tend to have more sturdy construction than do cars built for the United States market. - Weakens

(D) Automobile passengers in the United States have a greater statistical chance of being involved in an accident than do passengers in Europe. - Correct. As this statement has no effect on the conclusion of the stem. The conclusion is "the United States needs to adopt more stringent standards for safety belt design to protect automobile passengers better." This option only says the passengers have greater chance of accident in US. The reason could be anything!

(E) States that have recently begun requiring the European safety belt have experienced no reduction in the average severity of injuries suffered by passengers in automobile accidents. - Weakens
_________________

Cheers!
JT...........
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!!

|Do not post questions with OA|Please underline your SC questions while posting|Try posting the explanation along with your answer choice|
|For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|


~~Better Burn Out... Than Fade Away~~

Brain

A weakens the argument...its says that its not the seat belt, its the
tendency not to wear seat belts that causes the accidents.

I think D

We dont know what statistical basis is used for this statement...

brain,

i think you just answered you own question in your last post....A is wrong b/c:

the issue: Europe has less severe accidents b/c it has stringent safety belt laws (better type of belt or whatever...),....then the argument says that the US needs to adopt this type of safety belt standard to better protect passengers....

we need to find something that doesn't weaken this argument...and the best way to do that is to eliminate everything that does weaken this argument...and in order to weaken the argument, we just need to show that the even if the safety belt standards were adopted in the US, the accidents would still be severe...or in other words...there is another reason that the accidents in Europe are less severe

A:clearly weakens the argument b/c it shows that Europeans are more likely to wear safety belts...remember that the argument says that better safety belts would make injuries less severe in the US...well, if the Europeans are more likely to wear them, then that destroys the argument...b/c even though the US might have better belts, they're not going to wear them so the argument is moot....

and if you read closely B, C, and E all give "other" reasons why the accidents in Europe are less severe...and remember as I said before, an alternate cause is what we need to show lack of support for the conclusion....

consequently, the only choice left is D...and as you said Brainless, D neither supports or weakens the argument....which is what makes it the correct answer...remember, we are not looking for an answer that supports the conclusion...the question merely asks, which one does NOT WEAKEN the argument....and that would be D....precisely b/c it does nothing...it just gives us some useless information....we don't care what else it does to the argument, it could support it or not...BUT AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT WEAKEN THE ARGUMET, it is the answer...hope that makes sense...

I have a doubt with E, argument says United States needs to adopt more stringent standards
why because in US passengers involved in auto mobile accidents are typically more severe than in Europe
and in Europe require a different kind of safety belt.
What if same Europe is applied in states and injurious severity reduces.
to strengthen assumption is Europe seat belt is not able to reduce severity hence US need more standard.
PLease explain

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________

-
April 2018: New Forum dedicated to Verbal Strategies, Guides, and Resources