AjiteshArun wrote:
JohnWycliffe wrote:
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.