Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 04:20 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 04:20
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,379
Own Kudos:
778,195
 [7]
Given Kudos: 99,977
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,379
Kudos: 778,195
 [7]
The public service advertising campaign promoting the use of helmets 17 Sep 2025, 01:08
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
6
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

56% (02:02) correct 44% (02:05) wrong based on 208 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The public service advertising campaign promoting the use of helmets has improved bicycle safety dramatically. Over the past 12 months, the number of serious bicycling injuries has been reduced by nearly 70 percent. Unfortunately, helmet usage has not reduced the number of all types of bike injuries. While serious head trauma has decreased by nearly 85 percent, broken bones now represent 20 percent of all reported bicycling injuries. This is a significant increase from last year’s 14 percent.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument does which of the following?

A. It fails to include information about any types of bicycle injuries other than head trauma and broken bones.

B. It implies that the same conclusion can result from two different sets of causes.

C. It fails to take into account any possible increase in the number of people riding bicycles over the past 12 months.

D. It presumes that an increase in the percentage of injuries involving broken bones precludes a decrease in the actual number of such injuries.

E. It ignores the fact that a 70 percent overall decrease in injuries would not allow for an 85 percent decrease in one specific type of injury.


­
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
D
User avatar
okHedwig
User avatar
Joined: 13 Apr 2022
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
23
Given Kudos: 67
Posts: 38
Kudos: 23
The public service advertising campaign promoting the use of helmets 17 Sep 2025, 10:23
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi,
I was confused between C & D, but later chose C
Can you please help me with the logic behind the answer choices, I am still confused between these 2 options.

Thanks
User avatar
Priyank1905
User avatar
Joined: 05 May 2025
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 17
Own Kudos:
11
 [1]
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 17
Kudos: 11
 [1]
The public service advertising campaign promoting the use of helmets 17 Sep 2025, 11:27
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I assume that is the answer is D. Though i was also confused between C and D in the beginning. According to me option D assumes that since broken bones went from 14% to 20%, the actual number of broken bone injuries increased — which is not necessarily true.
okHedwig
Hi,
I was confused between C & D, but later chose C
Can you please help me with the logic behind the answer choices, I am still confused between these 2 options.

Thanks
Show more
User avatar
mkeshri185
User avatar
Joined: 01 May 2025
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 90
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 90
Kudos: 1
The public service advertising campaign promoting the use of helmets 17 Sep 2025, 11:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The argument doesn't say 'number of bone injury' increased. It says the percent this year is 20% which has increased from last year's 14%. So he is talking about percent increase from 14 to 20 which is not flaw.
Priyank1905
I assume that is the answer is D. Though i was also confused between C and D in the beginning. According to me option D assumes that since broken bones went from 14% to 20%, the actual number of broken bone injuries increased — which is not necessarily true.

Show more
User avatar
findingmyself
User avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2025
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 231
Own Kudos:
157
 [3]
Given Kudos: 57
Posts: 231
Kudos: 157
 [3]
The public service advertising campaign promoting the use of helmets 17 Sep 2025, 15:37
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
okHedwig Priyank1905 mkeshri185

The answer here is D:It presumes that an increase in the percentage of injuries involving broken bones precludes a decrease in the actual number of such injuries.

Here the argument by author say that incease in bone injury from 14% to 20% in a negative light saying that "Oh the overall injuries have decreased by 70%, but bone injuries did not"

This is a classic case of difference between Percentage and absolute values

Lets say earlier Total injuries were 1000, they have now decreased to 300 (70% Decrease)
Bone injuries in earlier case is 14% of 1000 which is 140, now it is 20% of 300, which is 60, Still it is a decrease, the overall pie has decreased. The Author is wrong in saying that just because 14% increased to 20%, the stituation is bad, Apparently the situation is great. We have a decrease in absolute value from 140 to 60.
User avatar
Priyank1905
User avatar
Joined: 05 May 2025
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 17
Own Kudos:
11
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 17
Kudos: 11
The public service advertising campaign promoting the use of helmets 18 Sep 2025, 00:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Yes absolutely, I meant that only, Sorry for the confusion.
mkeshri185
The argument doesn't say 'number of bone injury' increased. It says the percent this year is 20% which has increased from last year's 14%. So he is talking about percent increase from 14 to 20 which is not flaw.

Show more
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,379
Own Kudos:
778,195
Given Kudos: 99,977
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,379
Kudos: 778,195
The public service advertising campaign promoting the use of helmets 05 Oct 2025, 18:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
The public service advertising campaign promoting the use of helmets has improved bicycle safety dramatically. Over the past 12 months, the number of serious bicycling injuries has been reduced by nearly 70 percent. Unfortunately, helmet usage has not reduced the number of all types of bike injuries. While serious head trauma has decreased by nearly 85 percent, broken bones now represent 20 percent of all reported bicycling injuries. This is a significant increase from last year’s 14 percent.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument does which of the following?

A. It fails to include information about any types of bicycle injuries other than head trauma and broken bones.

B. It implies that the same conclusion can result from two different sets of causes.

C. It fails to take into account any possible increase in the number of people riding bicycles over the past 12 months.

D. It presumes that an increase in the percentage of injuries involving broken bones precludes a decrease in the actual number of such injuries.

E. It ignores the fact that a 70 percent overall decrease in injuries would not allow for an 85 percent decrease in one specific type of injury.­
Show more


KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:



STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE
The question stem alerts you to the idea that this argument is flawed, so Flaw is definitely the question type here.

STEP 2: UNTANGLE THE STIMULUS
The author concludes that the number of broken-bone bicycle injuries has gone up from last year to this year. The evidence for this is that broken bones made up 20 percent of this year’s total bicycle-related injuries but were only 14 percent of last year’s total.

STEP 3: PREDICT THE ANSWER
As soon as you see both percentages and numbers mentioned in the stimulus for a Flaw question, beware. In the Quantitative section, you will learn, if you have not already, that you must be careful when working with percentages. Twenty percent is guaranteed to equal a higher number than 14 percent only if those percentages are of the same total. And since the total number of injuries is much lower this year than last year, 20 percent of a much lower total could actually equal a lower number than 14 percent of last year’s higher total. If you’re having trouble seeing this, you can use the Quant strategy of Picking Numbers. Suppose there were 100 bicycle injuries last year. That means that 14 percent, or 14 total, of those injuries involved broken bones. You know that this year, injuries have been reduced by 70 percent. In this example, that means there were a total of 30 bicycle injuries this year. Twenty percent of the new, lower total is 6 broken-bone injuries, a significantly lower number than last year’s 14. The flaw here is the author’s assumption that an increase in percentage cannot be consistent with a decrease in actual number.

STEP 4: EVALUATE THE CHOICES
Only (D) accurately captures the logical flaw in this argument—confusing percent and actual value. (D) is the correct answer. The fact that the author mentions only two types of injuries, as (A) says, is not a flaw in the argument, which concerns only whether or not the number of broken bones has been reduced. Other types of injuries are irrelevant. Since two sets of causes aren’t discussed, you can rule out (B). Causation does figure in many GMAT flaws, but not this one. (C) might seem tempting, since it does relate to the “percentage versus actual number” issue, but if the total number of bicyclists increased over the past year, the reduction in the number of total injuries would actually be greater. And since a 70 percent overall decrease in injuries could, in fact, allow for an 85 percent decrease in one specific type of injury, (E) can be ruled out as well.
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts