GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Jan 2019, 19:31

### 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

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

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in January
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
303112345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### FREE Quant Workshop by e-GMAT!

January 20, 2019

January 20, 2019

07:00 AM PST

07:00 AM PST

Get personalized insights on how to achieve your Target Quant Score.
• ### GMAT Club Tests are Free & Open for Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday!

January 21, 2019

January 21, 2019

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Mark your calendars - All GMAT Club Tests are free and open January 21st for celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday.

# The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 18 Mar 2009
Posts: 13
The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2010, 01:13
1
5
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

50% (01:54) correct 50% (01:28) wrong based on 164 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has nearly doubled in the past 8 years. It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred, because although the number of children aged 4 and under who were killed while riding in cars involved in accidents rose 10 percent over the past 8 years, the total number of serious automobile accidents rose by 20 percent during that period.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5.
(B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years.
(C) Children are taking more trips in cars today than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant.
(D) The sharpest increase in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2.
(E) The number of fatalities among adults involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years.

QA 8
Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 176

### Show Tags

Updated on: 04 Apr 2010, 23:00
tough one. between B and C I pick B.
It is difficult one for an explanation.

Originally posted by Indien on 04 Apr 2010, 02:07.
Last edited by Indien on 04 Apr 2010, 23:00, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2009
Posts: 143

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2010, 06:07
1
clearly B

Argument says: % of serious accidents rose 20% but child fatality rose only 10%
so child fatality must have been reduced by safety gear

But what if the proportion of accidents invloving child fatalities itself decreased by lets say 90%,then the proportioante rise in death of children under 4 should have been somewhere around 2% which is far less than 10%.

Here the stimulus comes in to say that No,THE PRPORTION REMAINED SAME and clarifies that no such decrease took place and seals the argument.
VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1077

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2010, 19:34
will appreciate if someone can provide a more detailed explanation on this
Intern
Joined: 21 Feb 2010
Posts: 23
Location: Ukraine

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2010, 13:06
The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has nearly doubled in the past 8 years. It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred, because although the number of children aged 4 and under who were killed while riding in cars involved in accidents rose 10 percent over the past 8 years, the total number of serious automobile accidents rose by 20 percent during that period.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5.

I'm newbie in CR.
Maybe I undeerstood wrong all conception of the Strengthen questions.
I thought the answer is A.
We need to prove cause, and the cause here is 'increase of child fatalities'.
And the effect is "doubling children seates by children aged 4 and under".
so, answer A says "yes, increase of child fatalities was because seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5"
Can somebody explaine where my mistake is, please?
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 171

### Show Tags

26 Apr 2010, 16:46
B is closer. We can rule out A since we are only looking at kids <= 4yrs of age and data pertaining to that. the key here in the question is that we have to focus on accident numbers of kids 4 yr and under....hope this helps
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 739
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2010, 00:09
IMO B.

The conclusion - It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred.

Best supporting premise: fatalities that otherwise would have occurred.

HAS PREVENTED is the catch here. If the safety seats has preveneted the fatalities for the 8 yrs then the use of safety seats is justified. Choice B is indicating this.

(B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years.

arghya05 wrote:
The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has nearly doubled in the past 8 years. It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred, because although the number of children aged 4 and under who were killed while riding in cars involved in accidents rose 10 percent over the past 8 years, the total number of serious automobile accidents rose by 20 percent during that period.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5.
(B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years.
(C) Children are taking more trips in cars today than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant.
(D) The sharpest increase in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2.
(E) The number of fatalities among adults involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years.

QA 8

_________________

Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html
Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1077

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2010, 12:22
can someone provide a detailed explanation on how (B) strengthens the argument?
Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Posts: 69

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2010, 07:06
When I encounter question that is too time consuming to understand, I just scan the keyword in each answer choice for POE:
(A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5.-Children over 5 is out of scope
(B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years.-proportion is usually related to %-keep this one
(C) Children are taking more trips in cars today than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant.- again out of scope
(D) The sharpest increase in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2.-not pertaining to the subject matter
(E) The number of fatalities among adults involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years.- not pertaining to subject matter

Going back to B, I still cant understand how they are related, but since every other choice is out of scope, I would keep B , finger crossed of course
Intern
Joined: 23 Aug 2010
Posts: 2

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2010, 10:38
The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has nearly doubled in the past 8 years. It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred, because although the number of children aged 4 and under who were killed while riding in cars involved in accidents rose 10 percent over the past 8 years, the total number of serious automobile accidents rose by 20 percent during that period.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5.
(B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years.
(C) Children are taking more trips in cars today than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant.
(D) The sharpest increase in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2.
(E) The number of fatalities among adults involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years.

Conclusion:The increase in the use of automobile safety has prevented child fatalities
Evidence :
The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has nearly doubled in the past 8 years.
The number of children aged 4 and under who were killed while riding in cars involved in accidents rose 10 percent over the past 8 years
The total number of serious automobile accidents rose by 20 percent during that period.

Note ,how suttle the difference is ,the conclusion talks of preventing child fatalities and evidence talks of serious automobile accidents which can include children ,teenagers ,etc all age groups ,But if its given liek in (B)that the proportion of serious fatalities in children amongst this vast group remained same ,it definitedly strengthens the conclusion ,

For example let in 1900 ,the no of child accident =100,in 1908 it shall be 110 (10%more)

let total no of serious accidents in 1900=1000 ,in 1908 it shall be 1200 (20%more)but we know that child fatalities are fixed at 10% proportion ,so compared to other age group fatalities ,they have decreased if we are to assume that their proportion is fixed over the last 10 years ,a period during which serious accidents over other age groups rose over 20%.

I hope its now clear to all ,

Humble Regards ,

Amlan Dutta
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Mar 2010
Posts: 400
Location: Europe

### Show Tags

31 Aug 2010, 10:53
I pick B.

I'm currently working on CR with the PowerScore bible, so I'll apply their techniques:

First find the conclusion (if any):
Quote:
It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred

Now we need to find answers that strengthen this conclusion. Well, except B they do not add any value to the conclusion, as they mostly bring in irrelevant information.
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 172
Location: Boston

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2010, 19:50
arghya05 wrote:
The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has nearly doubled in the past 8 years. It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred, because although the number of children aged 4 and under who were killed while riding in cars involved in accidents rose 10 percent over the past 8 years, the total number of serious automobile accidents rose by 20 percent during that period.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5.
(B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years.
(C) Children are taking more trips in cars today than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant.
(D) The sharpest increase in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2.
(E) The number of fatalities among adults involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years.

QA 8

The first thing I thought when I read the bolded part of the argument was, "The total number of serious automobile accidents does not specify the age of the people in the cars - what if that 20% increase was made up entirely of adults?" If that were true, then the argument that the increase in child fatalities is irrelevant would be false. So, if you want to strengthen the claim, look for a piece of information stating that the number of children in these accidents has increased as well. Answer (B) states exactly that - since the proportion of accidents involving children has remained constant, then any increase in ALL accidents means there's an increase in the RELEVANT accidents we care about. (B) is the answer.
Intern
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 18
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36
GPA: 3.59
WE: Accounting (Accounting)

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2010, 00:38
It is B:

Assuming that the proportion of accidents involving children has remained constant, while the number of the serious accidents have increased clearly supports the conclusion that the use of safety seats decreased the fatality.
Senior Manager
Affiliations: Volunteer Operation Smile India, Creative Head of College IEEE branch (2009-10), Chief Editor College Magazine (2009), Finance Head College Magazine (2008)
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 366
Location: India
WE2: Entrepreneur (E-commerce - The Laptop Skin Vault)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Marketing (Other)

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2010, 10:00
B is the only one tht strengthens the argument
Manager
Joined: 22 Jun 2016
Posts: 50
Re: The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2016, 01:59
As per argument
8 yrs before no.of fatal accidents 100
Let say Children died is 10 which is 10% of total

In past 8yrs fatal accidents rose by 20% = 120
Children died increased by 10%, which is 11 in number which is 9% of 120.

Option B
The proportion of children involving in accidents is constant.
It means before 8yrs, it was 10% involvement, if it is constant, 10% of 120 is 12 which is more than 10% of deaths that mentioned in argument.

====
Option C

More frequent trips means more chance of children involving in accidents, but still 10% fatality increase only due to child safety seat.

It could be wrong if they say children spent longer time in cars during the trip, and got involved in more % of accidents.

Please let me where I am going wrong.
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3570
Re: The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2018, 02:08
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
Re: The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and &nbs [#permalink] 03 Sep 2018, 02:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by