(A) among the bicyclists included in the study's sample of head injuries, only a very small proportion had been wearing a helmet at the time of their accident
" not wearing" of helmet is not into consideration

(B) even those bicyclists who regularly wear helmets have a poor understanding of the degree and kind of protection that helmets afford
bicyclist need not know about all that because it is mentioned that " .....helmets provide good protection for the top and back of the head..."


(C) a helmet that included protection for the temples would have to be somewhat larger and heavier than current helmets
still, the larger shape and heavier weight will not serve the purpose and does not ensure the safety of the temple.

(D) the bone in the temple area is relatively thin and impacts in that area are thus very likely to cause brain injury
the temple bone is sophisticated enough to get hurt - correct !

(E) bicyclists generally land on their arm or shoulder when they fall to the side, which reduces the likelihood of severe impacts on the side of the head
doesn't not ensure safety and this is not the case in general

I was confused b/w b and d . . it can be b as cyclists are unaware of this and they cannot protect themselves at the riskier part.

d bcz brain injury might be more serious than other injuries but no where mentioned in passage.

both require some leap ahead of whats stated and/or implied . . m still confused on why d and not b

Between D and E , i picked E , can some one explain how to eliminate E??

If the motorcycle rider land on their arm or shoulder when they fall, then there is reduced chance of severe impacts on the temple area and so the no. of injuries is less in temple area in motorcycle accidents.

so, there is no need for the protection of temple area.

I chose B..will anyone explain..y not B?? HOW D IS CORRECT?
_________________

For such questions it is imperative that one understands the reasoning in the argument.
Argument says - Helmets does not provide enough protection for temple region of the head and a study says that most injuries to cyclists are caused by injuries in temple area.

We need to complete the argument - "Therefore, if bicycle helmets protected this area, the risk of serious head injury in bicycle accidents would be greatly reduced, especially since ______________ ."

Now it is important to understand what is required out of us to complete - we need to complete the statement that could justify that if temple area is protected, risk of head injury will greatly reduce and this completion part needs to strengthen this reasoning.

As in (B) says - " even those bicyclists who regularly wear helmets have a poor understanding of the degree and kind of protection that helmets afford"

This statement conveying that bikers have a poor understanding of the helmet protection - now to think here is how just having a poor understanding of helmet protection can Strengthen what we require to fill in the blank.

It doesn't.

(D) on the other hand - by stating that temple area has a soft bone, Surely strengthens that helmet protection needs to be better for temple area.

Hope it HELPS.

Hello Puneet,
The argument suggests that "serious injuries" to the head will decrease substantially if the temple region is protected by helmets.
To complete the argument we need a corroborative evidence that says "yes, injuries to the temple causes serious head injuries and preventing this will lower serious injury rates"
Option D does just his by showing that injuries to the temple region of the head can be quite serious.
Option B though talks about bicyclists having a poor understanding of the degree and kind of protection that helmets afford- this has no bearing to the fact that protecting the temple region will cause reduction in serious injuries.

Therefore Option D is relevant, option B isn't.
Hope that helps,
Ajeeth
_________________

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

(A) among the bicyclists included in the study's sample of head injuries, only a very small proportion had been wearing a helmet at the time of their accident...right now we are focusing only on temple injuries.... hence incorrect...

(B) even those bicyclists who regularly wear helmets have a poor understanding of the degree and kind of protection that helmets afford...Understanding does'nt matter....INCORRECT....

(C) a helmet that included protection for the temples would have to be somewhat larger and heavier than current helmets....WE ARE'NT worried about size...incorrect

(D) the bone in the temple area is relatively thin and impacts in that area are thus very likely to cause brain injury...correct....completes the sentence perfectly...

(E) bicyclists generally land on their arm or shoulder when they fall to the side, which reduces the likelihood of severe impacts on the side of the head,...irrelevant...

I chose (A) initially and I think this can easily be the answer because :
the study also indirectly shows that even if without helmet, they are unlikely to be injured at the top and back of the head. Therefore, protecting the temple area is more than sufficient to reduce large population of head injuries.

Therefore, if we omit the keyword “serious”, (A) can complete the sentence better than (D).

Is this reasoning correct to eliminate (A)?


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

D is the correct answer because;

The premise initially mentions LARGE proportion whereas in the conclusion statement it mentions SERIOUS injuries.

So we need an answer that connects temple area as having the most serious injuries- thereby the conclusion would be correct and statement completed.

The conclusion is : "if bicycle helmets protected this area, the risk of serious head injury in bicycle accidents would be greatly reduced"
Suppose A) is not true, that is suppose that all the bicyclists in the study were wearing helmets. That still doesn't mean that the risk of serious head injury wouldn't be greatly reduced were helmets made to cover the temple area.

Basically A doesn't matter. If all the people were wearing helmets, the conclusion would still be true.

Although I got the answer right, I have a small doubt.

A study of head injuries resulting from bicycle accidents showed that a large proportion was caused by blows to the temple area. -> an explanation to this could be that since the helmet was already protecting the top and back of the head, most accidents affected temple area.

Choice (A) -> among the bicyclists included in the study's sample of head injuries, only a very small proportion had been wearing a helmet at the time of their accident -> a large number of bicyclists were not wearing helmet -> still, most injuries are affecting temple area -> the area needs to be protected

Doesn't choice A strengthens the conclusion?

GMATNinja - can you please help me explain this?

Option A could actually weaken the conclusion if we decide to focus on the "little or no protection for the temple regions on the sides of the head" portion.

This is the logic we'll get with option A:

1. There are "normal helmets" ("most bicycle helmets").
2. A study says that a large proportion of head injuries involved blows to the temple area.
but
3. Almost no one in the sample covered by the study had been wearing a "normal helmet".
therefore
4. We need "special helmets" that protect the temple area.

If no one had been wearing a normal helmet, then it becomes very hard to determine whether normal helmets provide sufficient protection. That is, it is possible that they do, but we just can't see it from the study because the study did not include anyone who had been wearing a helmet. To strengthen the need for a "special helmet", we should instead say that a very large proportion of the people in the sample wore helmets but they still received injuries to the temple area. This will help us make the case for "special helmets".
_________________

Did no one else come to think that if D was true, and the bone was relatively thin, a helmet wouldn't be adequate protection? That even if someone lands on his or her helmet, the resulting impact would still likely cause them serious injury? That if just impacts to this area are likely to cause brain injury, the fact that people wear helmets doesn't change the fact that there would be an impact to the temple area? That because of these facts, D weakens the argument instead of strengthens it? You don't strengthen an argument that serious injury would be significantly reduced by proposing that there's a high likelihood for serious injury or that that it is easy to have a serious injury. If there was a low to moderate likelihood of serious injury, a helmet would be more likely to reduce the likelihood of serious injury.

And that E strengthens the argument? Just because you land on your arm, doesn't mean your head doesn't hit the ground. Often your head hits the ground. If you land on your arm, that takes some of the force of the blow away, making it so that the helmet is able to negate a greater percentage of the blow to your temple ---> resulting in fewer serious injuries.

Like if you were jump off a tall building or the playground swings with a helmet on, the fact that your bones are brittle would not strengthen the argument that the helmet would likely protect you from serious injury, but the fact that there's a giant cushion on the bottom would.

I can't help but see this as a terrible question.

A helmet may prove inadequate even with additional protection for the temple regions, but it is more likely to be adequate in a greater number of accidents if it includes additional protection.

Let's take a car like "The Beast" (I don't know much about cars, so you'll have to make allowances for that). The windows are relatively thin and weak compared to the other parts of the car, and reinforcing them cannot guarantee that they won't break before other parts of the car do. However, reinforcing them is still a good idea, as it will help in at least some cases. That is, we should not avoid reinforcing the weaker elements just because they could still fail in an exceptionally bad accident.
_________________

A helmet with additional protection for the temple area improves protection for the temple area and diminishes the risk of serious injury. But the question asks, which of the following statements ABCDE if true, would make this more the case.

A helmet with additional protection for the temple areas would be more likely to be adequate protection against serious injury -- if the bones were not especially thin and the temple area was not especially vulnerable.

A helmet with additional protection for the temple areas would be more likely to be adequate protection against serious injury -- if the some of the blow of the fall was cushioned by the person landing on his arm.

Lets say a helmet protects the temple from 10 newtons of force and cushions 50% of the remaining force. You cushioning an additional 10Ns of the blow with your arm diminishes the amount of the resulting force to your helmet, which after cushioning the blow itself, diminishes even more the likelihood of the serious injury. If you were likely to fall on your arm, it would be likely that the amount of force onto your helmet would be diminished, meaning the helmet would be more likely to protect you. If you didn't cushion the blow with the arm, the fact that the helmet has the additional protection would less likely be sufficient to protect you from serious injury. However if it is true that even a small amount of force (1N) reaching your temple would result in serious injury, that increases the likelihood of serious injury.

If Force of the Fall - Cushioning provided by other body parts - protection from helmet < Maximum force your temple area is able to sustain before serious injury --- > no serious injury.
If Force of the Fall - Cushioning provided by other body parts - protection from helmet > Maximum force your temple area is able to sustain before serious injury ---> serious injury.

E seems to me to be obviously more logical.

Here is my 2 cents:

Choice D: temple area is more likely to be impacted --> more likely to result in head injury --> protection of temple area would help reduce the likelihood of injury

Choice A: A actually weakens the argument. If we change A "a very small portion" to "a very large portion", then A is very possible to be another correct answer to strengthen the argument because:

If a very large portion of people wore helmets in accidents, then the data presented in the premise (a large portion of accidents had temple injuries) would be justified because it eliminates the possibility that not wearing helmets might lead to temple injuries --> which is the opposite case in A. Choice A gives us an alternative that not wearing helmets might also lead to temple injuries, then we wouldn't know if extra protection of temple areas would help or not.
_________________