Most bicycle helmets provide good protection for the top and back of

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...

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.

dear experts avigutman, AndrewN,MartyTargetTestPrep , RonTargetTestPrep

I realized "especially since___"in this question, instead of "since___" normally. any experts can elaborate does "especially " here impact the CR? what's the difference if without especially.

The use of "especially" doesn't make a big difference in how we approach this question. Seeing "since," we still look for a choice that provides support for the conclusion that precedes "since."

The use of "especially" there just serves to make the sentence more logical. Here's why.

The passage already provides support for the conclusion that "if bicycle helmets protected this area, the risk of serious head injury in bicycle accidents would be greatly reduced." So, it doesn't make sense to say simply "since" before the evidence that fills the blank since the evidence that fills the blank is not the first reason why the conclusion is correct. On the other hand, by using "especially since" instead of just "since," the passage makes clear that what follows "since" is evidence in addition to evidence already provided.

Did you get the reason btw? Same doubt...