On the basis of incontestable proof that car safety seats will greatly

Question

On the basis of incontestable proof that car safety seats will greatly reduce the number of serious injuries sustained by children in car accidents, laws have been passed mandating the use of these seats. Unexpectedly, it has since been found that a large number of children who are riding in safety seats continue to receive serious injuries that safety seats were specifically designed to avoid, and in the prevention of which they in fact have proven to be effective.

Which one of the following, if true, could by itself adequately explain the unexpected finding reported in the passage?

Which one of the following, if true, could by itself adequately explain the unexpected finding reported in the passage?

(A) Many parents are defying the law by not using safety seats for their children.

(B) Children are more likely to make automobile trips now than they were before the introduction of the safety seat.

(C) The high cost of child safety seats has caused many parents to delay purchasing them.

(D) The car safety seat was not designed to prevent all types of injuries, so it is not surprising that some injuries are sustained.

(E) The protection afforded by child safety seats depends on their being used properly, which many parents fail to do.

shashankism · Accepted Answer

Break up : 
1. On the basis of incontestable proof that car safety seats will greatly reduce the number of serious injuries sustained by children in car accidents, laws have been passed mandating the use of these seats. 
2. Unexpectedly, it has since been found that a large number of children
 who are riding in safety seats  continue to receive serious injuries that safety seats were specifically designed to avoid, and in the prevention of which they in fact have proven to be effective.

Conclusion : Since safety seats have been designed to save children from injury, it must save children from serious injury. There must be something wrong, it might be possible that parents are not using it properly or not using it at all. But the questions stem says that a large number of children who are riding in safety seats continue to receive serious injuries which means, the safety seats are being used but not used in a proper manner as per the guidelines.

(A) Many parents are defying the law by not using safety seats for their children. 
The question stem says that children are getting injured in safety seats. So, safety seats are used.

(B) Children are more likely to make automobile trips now than they were before the introduction of the safety seat. 
Even if children are more likely to make automobile trips, the injuries should not increase due to use of safety seat.

(C) The high cost of child safety seats has caused many parents to delay purchasing them. 
The question stem says that children are getting injured in safety seats. So, safety seats are used. Same as A.

(D) The car safety seat was not designed to prevent all types of injuries, so it is not surprising that some injuries are sustained. 
Even if the seats are not designed to prevent all types of injuries, the no. of injuries should actually decrease..

(E) The protection afforded by child safety seats depends on their being used properly, which many parents fail to do. 
Yo. this might be the cause, many parents fail to use the safety seats properly.

My answer is E. Waiting for original answer.

Skywalker18 · Answer

The expected result is that the laws mandating use of car seats proven to improve safety should cause a decrease in number of serious injuries --

The unexpected result is that a large number continue to be in serious accidents.

(A) doesn't explain the unexpected result, because the result happens when the car seats are being used.

(C), for the same reason, doesn't explain anything, because the result is specifically about when the seats are used, and (C) only impacts whether people will have them or not.

(D) does not explain the unexpected result, because the unexpected result has to do with injuries the seat was specifically designed to help avoid.

That leaves (B) and (E) --

(B) is super-tempting, but does not, in and of itself, help explain the unexpected result in the same way that (E) can. Even if the child is on the road more (which would of course increase # of opportunities for injury) -- it doesn't explain why the seat doesn't markedly help prevent injuries it is meant to.

(E) address the unexpected just a bit more specifically.

pikolo2510 · Answer

Hey  nightblade354 ,  adkikani ,  KarishmaB

I couldn't solve this CR because I couldn't comprehend the last line of the argument. Can you help to explain the meaning of the last line?

nightblade354 · Answer

Hi  pikolo2510 ,

The last line says that the seats are not doing what they are supposed to be doing: They are failing to do the job for which they were designed.

Does this clarify anything?

adkikani · Answer

pikolo2510 My two cents: There is no denying to evidence that safety seats will greatly reduce the no of serious injuries sustained by children in car accidents. So a law is passed making these seats mandatory. However, something unexpected was found: Though seat belts are proven to be effective in preventing serious injuries, somehow still large number of children continue to get serious injuries. What could be the reason for it to happen? Can you take further from here?

auradediligodo · Answer

Hi everyone,

Paradox question

The paradox at hand is that tough safety seats are implemented many children still report injuries that should have been prevented by the usage of such safety seats.

Option A talks about the wrong entity
 Option B   seems tempting but safety seats should prevent injuries independently by how may trips are made. Maybe other injuries not addressed by the safety seats might increase...
Option C is irrelevant
Option D is irrelevant

Option E  Clearly tells us that parents don't know how to use those safety seats and so those safety seats become useless.

chrtpmdr · Answer

Imho B) could make sense as well, E) is just the cleaner version. 
But think about B), the prompt just states that the likelyhood of injuries decreases vastly with the seat.

Now, if we would have 10 of those injuries on 100 children and the new seat would manage to reduce that to 3 on 100 that would be a great reduction. 
But what if the number of children on the street rises from 100 to 500, because everyone feels so safe now? That would resolve the paradox, but I agree, you really have to argue a lot to make this the better choice of E).

I am just pointing out that there are several CR questions that would have an OA similar to B), under circumstances that there is nothing better to choose from.

TestPrepUnlimited · Answer

Correct answer: B

A: Incorrect. (A) is irrelevant: The argument concerns "a large number of children  who are riding in safety seats " 
B: Correct. If more children make automobile trips now than before the advent of the safety seat, it stands to follow that the number of injuries involving children in safety seats could increase. 
C: Incorrect. (C) is irrelevant, similarly to A. 
D: Incorrect. Whether the car safety seat was designed to prevent all types of injuries is not material, as the introduction of the car safety seat has witnessed an  unexpected increase   in injuries. 
E: Incorrect. The argument explicitly mentions "incontestable proof" that the use of safety seats will reduce the number of injuries sustained by children. Therefore, even if "many parents" fail to use the seats properly, the number of injuries should still decline.

nikitathegreat · Answer

Can someone help explain ans choice B? if someone makes more trips because now we have a safety seat then won't it increase the opportunities to have same/higher no. of injuries?

100 children were travelling earlier and 10 children were affected 
Now, 200 children are travelling and 10 children are affected. The safety seats is clearly effective here but the no. of injuries remains the same.

Option E says that - Parents are not using the belt correctly and hence the serious injuries continues. Had the belt been used correctly, the injury would have diminished. While this also looks convincing, can someone help explain how to eliminate option choice B?
Thanks

kartickdey · Answer

bb   Bunuel 
Please clarify whether the right answer is B or E. As per the expert of TestPrepUnlimited it should be B but the answer shown is E

guddo · Answer

On the basis of incontestable proof that car safety seats will greatly reduce the number of serious injuries sustained by children in car accidents, laws have been passed mandating the use of these seats. Unexpectedly, it has since been found that a large number of children who are riding in safety seats continue to receive serious injuries that safety seats were specifically designed to avoid, and in the prevention of which they in fact have proven to be effective.

Which one of the following, if true, could by itself adequately explain the unexpected finding reported in the passage?

Which one of the following, if true, could by itself adequately explain the unexpected finding reported in the passage?

The passage states that while safety seats are proven to prevent certain serious injuries, many children using them still sustain those same injuries. The unexpected finding needs an explanation that resolves why the seats fail in practice despite their proven effectiveness.

(A) Many parents are defying the law by not using safety seats for their children.

This contradicts the premise, as the finding specifically involves children  riding in safety seats .

(B) Children are more likely to make automobile trips now than they were before the introduction of the safety seat.

Increased trips might raise exposure to accidents, but it doesn’t explain why injuries occur  despite  using effective seats.

(C) The high cost of child safety seats has caused many parents to delay purchasing them.

Delayed purchases don’t apply to children already using the seats, which the finding addresses.

(D) The car safety seat was not designed to prevent all types of injuries, so it is not surprising that some injuries are sustained.

This acknowledges seats don’t prevent all injuries, but the finding involves injuries the seats  were designed to avoid  and  are effective  against, so this doesn’t explain their failure.

(E) The protection afforded by child safety seats depends on their being used properly, which many parents fail to do.

This explains the paradox:  if seats depend on proper use and parents often misuse them, injuries can still occur even though the seats themselves are effective when used correctly. This directly accounts for the unexpected results.

Answer: (E)

guddo · Answer

The official answer (the OA) is  always  the one shown in the original post under the “Show Answer” button. For this question, the OA is given as E. For some questions, some experts may disagree, but that does not change the official answer. For this particular question, I’d say that the OA is correct and it is E.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

kartickdey

The official answer is E, because the argument tells us that use of safety seats will definitely reduce the injuries. However the children are still receiving the injuries. We have to find the reason why even after using the safety seats injuries are still happening.

Option B tells that the no. Of trips taken by children are increasing but it doesn't tells us anything about the injury. Whereas option E says that injuries are happening because of not using the seats properly.

Also I have checked various forums and it is confirmed the OA is E

Hope this helps

On the basis of incontestable proof that car safety seats will greatly

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

On the basis of incontestable proof that car safety seats will greatly

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