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

A

Autor argues that safety belts are the primary cause in reducing the severity of injuries in accidents. A supports this assumption
All other undermine the argument

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...

I still feel choice A gives more than enough info to support the assumption made by author , that, not wearing a properly designed safety belt(in US) is as good in resulting more severe injuries as 'wearing an improperly designed safety belt'

As far as D is concerned, It merely emphasizes a stastistical report that there are more accidents in US than in Europe, but does not make one believe that how many of these accidents actually resulted in severe injuries for not wearing a safety belt. Therfore it neither strengthens nor weakens the argument.

Please clarify

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

No, E says "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." This point itself makes doubt if the European safety belt was the only reason in reduction of injuries in Europe, as the same when applied to other nations didn't provide similar or near to similar results. Thus , it could happen that seat belt is not something that is causing severe accidents in US. hence, E is a weakener.
--
Hit Kudos if you like the answer.
_________________

Official Explanation

Argument Evaluation

The argument suggests that passengers involved in automobile accidents in the United States typically are more seriously injured than those in Europe. Furthermore, in Europe, a different safety belt design is used. The argument suggests that these European-style safety belts are more protective against serious injury than those used in the United States. Furthermore, it suggests that the United States would therefore benefit by adopting more stringent design standards for safety belts.

To clarify, the rate of severe injuries would indicate, for example, the number of seriously injured passengers per 100,000 passengers involved in automobile accidents. Note that this rate does not depend on the total number of passengers involved in automobile accidents.

However, many other factors could provide an alternative explanation for these differences in rate of severe injury. The question stem asks us which answer choice does NOT weaken the argument; in other words, we must find a factor among the answer choices that does NOT account for this difference in the rate of severe injury. Effectively, we will be looking for the answer that has no bearing on the rate of severe injury.

Which one of the statements given does NOT weaken the argument?

A. This choice weakens the argument. It suggests the possibility that the difference in rates of severe injury is due to the number of people who actually wear safety belts in the U.S. versus in Europe. This rate is, of course, irrespective of the functionality of the belts themselves. In other words, the effectiveness of the belt design is irrelevant if the belt is not being worn in the first place.

B. This choice weakens the argument. Training to understand how to minimize injury, rather than a safety belt design difference, may be a primary factor accounting for the lower severe injury rate in Europe.

C. This choice weakens the argument. The fact that cars constructed in Europe are more sturdy may account for the lower severe injury rate in Europe rather than the difference in the types of safety belts used.

D. Correct. This choice does not weaken the argument. The higher likelihood that one is involved in an automobile accident in the U.S. actually has no bearing on the higher rate of severe injury among passengers who are involved in automobile accidents. That is, the rate itself is a proportion of the total number of passengers involved in accidents rather than the number itself. This rate would remain the same whether 10 accidents or 10 million accidents occurred.

E. This answer choice suggests that even implementation within the United States of the European safety belt design does not seem to change serious injury rates. This implies, of course, that some other factor is likely responsible for the differences in rates of serious injury between the U.S. and Europe.

The correct answer is D.

for A what i understood is effect is there "rate of injury" but cause is missing '"wearing of safety belt". hence a weakener.

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. - This statement compares the severity of the injuries to the passengers involved in automobile accidents between the US and Europe. Such injuries are generally more severe in the US than in Europe. In Europe, laws require a different kind of safety belt (different from the safety belt required by the laws in the US).

It is clear from this that the United States needs to adopt more stringent standards for safety belt design to protect automobile passengers better. - Given the above statement, the author concludes that the US needs to adopt more stringent standards for safety belt design so that automobile passengers can be better protected.

Gist: Since in Europe, whose laws require a different kind of seat belt, the severity of the injuries to passengers involved in automobile accidents is less than that in the US (support), the US needs to have more stringent standards for safety belt design (conclusion).



The argument is pretty weak and has many gaps, as we’ll discover in the options. For now, I’ll just say that the argument follows a very common flawed way of arguing. It sees a correlation i.e. two things co-exist (difference in severity of injuries and different safety belt requirements) and assumes that one is the cause of the other. It fails to consider that the two things may not have any causal relationship.



This is a Weaken Except question. Thus, we should see four options that weaken the argument – these options will be incorrect – and one option that doesn’t weaken the argument (either it strengthens the argument or it has no impact) – this one will be correct.



(A) Europeans are more likely to wear safety belts than are people in the United States.
Incorrect. This option weakens the argument by presenting an alternate explanation for the difference in the severity of the injuries. If Europeans are more likely to wear safety belts, naturally they are expected to have less severe injuries in accidents. Does the ‘kind of seat belt’ have a role to play in the difference in the severity of the injuries? We are not sure now. Thus, the conclusion suggesting changes in the standards for safety belt design comes into question.

(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.
Incorrect. This option weakens the argument by presenting an alternate explanation for the difference in the severity of the injuries. If European drivers and not US drivers are trained in the way mentioned, naturally Europeans are expected to have less severe injuries in accidents. This casts doubt on whether safety seat belts have any role to play in the difference in the severity of the injuries.

(C) Cars built for the European market tend to have more sturdy construction than do cars built for the United States market.
Incorrect. This option weakens the argument by presenting an alternate explanation for the difference in the severity of the injuries. If European cars are sturdier than the US cars, naturally Europeans are expected to have less severe injuries in accidents since the cars will be able to protect the passengers better. This option too casts doubt on whether safety seat belts have any role to play in the difference in the severity of the injuries.

The first three options highlight a very common way of weakening such an argument – presenting an alternate cause that probably leads to the effect.

(D) Automobile passengers in the United States have a greater statistical chance of being involved in an accident than do passengers in Europe.
Correct. This option has no impact on the argument. The option suggests that on average, automobile passengers in the US get involved in more accidents than do passengers in Europe. However, regardless of the number of accidents passengers get involved in, the difference in the ‘severity of the injuries’ still stands. And from the argument, it does seem that difference in the kinds of safety belts has a role to play here. Thus, the argument stands as is.

(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.
Incorrect. This option weakens the argument by presenting a situation in which the suggestion presented in the conclusion hasn’t worked. If the states that have started using European safety belts have not experienced any benefit from the shift, we become doubtful whether any changes in the safety seat belt design will help the US.


If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask.
_________________

I picked D because the "increased chance of being in an accident" has nothing to do with the "severity of injuries" as stated in the question.

However, I also doubted B; because training in "how to best react in the event of an accident" seems illogical. How can someone train for an accident (you can only train for the aftermath of an accident, not for damage mitigation in an accident itself) and how is that relevant for a discussion about safety belts? The severity of injury because of safety belts is done in the accident itself, not in the aftermath.

It would be interesting to know if anyone solved this in roughly a minute rather than the average which is roughly 2.
_________________

The catch is we are concerned about the severity of the accidents not the no of accidents .

D talks about probability of getting involved in "accidents" and doses not address the core issue

(D) Automobile passengers in the United States have a greater statistical chance of being involved in an accident than do passengers in Europe.

Weaken question except are critical questions.

Either you have to find a strengthener or you have to find a statement with NO IMPACT - we usually forget about this.
_________________

Hi.

In your explanation for option D, impact due to safety belts on the option is unclear

Thanks

Srikar

Choice D is clear, the option speaks about the frequency of accidents, while the question talks about the "severity of accidents"

The fact that Cars built for the European market tend to have more sturdy construction couldn't imply that their safety belts are better?

When i saw C, i thought that it could strenght the argument, bringing evidence that the safety belts could be one of the facts of the sturdiness

Guys I picked C since I thought that it was a great strengthener

In order for cars to cushion the impact, they must be able to curl themselves so that they do not propagate the concussive force on the passengers.

This means --> STURDIER doesn't imply SAFIER

IMO here the GMAC didn't think about it...