In the last decade, the use of bicycle helmets has increased tremendou

Official Explanation

(A) No. Nothing in the argument suggests that the incidence of accidents has gone up with the increased use of bicycle helmets.

(B) No. In fact, the argument states just the opposite—that bicycle helmets are exempt from the safety standards the government requires for football helmets.

(C) No. This argument concerns the incidence of head injuries in children who ride bicycles contrasted with children who play football. This selection encompasses all types of injuries, not merely head injuries. We have no information about the incidence of other types of injuries sustained in these activities, i.e., broken bones, sprained ankles, etc.

(D) No. Again, the author provides no information as to how many children play football and ride bicycles. And the conclusion in the passage deals with the probability of head injuries in children who participate in both activities, not the number of children who participate in these activities.

(E) Yes. The argument implies that because bicycle helmets are exempt from the government safety standards for football helmets, children will more likely be injured in bicycle accidents. However, bicycle helmets might be exempt from the standards because the government believes bicycle helmets already meet the safety standards applicable to football helmets. We don’t know the reason bicycle helmets are not covered by the standards. The implication in this argument is that bicycle helmets are not as safe as football helmets, and therefore, they are less likely to meet the football helmet safety standards.