Manager
Joined: 18 Jan 2018
Posts: 214
Given Kudos: 72
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Healthcare
GPA: 3.87
WE:Design (Manufacturing)
Re: To drastically reduce the chances of fatalities in accidents
[#permalink]
30 Jun 2019, 19:31
Official Explanation :
To drastically reduce the chances of fatalities in accidents, National Highway Safety Administration has required that cars be equipped with seat belts.
The NHSA has made it mandatory for cars to contain seat belts.
This enforcement has been done with the intent to significantly reduce the likelihood of deaths in accidents.
Just equipping the cars with seat belts does not reduce the chances of fatalities drastically
Mere presence of seat belts in cars doesn’t help in reducing the likelihood of deaths.
unless all occupants involved in the accident are wearing seatbelts.
Unless all the people sitting inside a car are wearing seatbelts.
A:In severe accidents, the chances of survival of occupants are much higher when all occupants in a car are wearing a seatbelt than if they are not.
This choice compares the outcomes between two situations.
Situation 1: All occupants in a car are wearing seatbelts
Outcome: Chances of survival = X
Situation 2: Not all occupants in a car are wearing seatbelts
Outcome: Chances of survival = Y
The statement says that X is greater than Y.
From the passage, we know that the chances of death reduce drastically when all occupants wear seatbelts (as opposed to when not all occupants wear seat belts).
This essentially means that the likelihood of survival increases when all occupants wear seatbelts (as opposed to when not all occupants wear seat belts).
So, this option statement is completely supported by the passage and therefore, is the correct answer.
B:The chances of being involved in an accident reduce drastically when all occupants in a car are wearing seat belts.
This choice presents the outcome for a certain situation.
Solution: All occupants in a car are wearing seatbelts.
Outcome: Likelihood of meeting with an accident reduces significantly.
From the passage, we know that the likelihood of death reduces when all occupants wear seatbelts.
However, the passage does NOT mention anything about likelihood of meeting with an accident.
So, we cannot infer that this likelihood will decrease – let alone “significantly” – from the passage.
C:There is little reduction in overall injuries if some people involved in an accident are not wearing seat belts.
This choice presents a condition and an outcome.
Condition: Some of the people involved in an accident are not wearing seat belts.
Effect: There is negligible decrease in overall injuries.
The passage does not mention or provide any information related to injuries as such.
The passage is merely concerned with deaths during an accident.
So, we cannot infer this statement from the passage.
D:In a town where most cars have a single occupant, requiring everyone to wear a seat belt is not required to drastically bring down the number of fatalities.
This choice talks about a town where majority of cars carry only one person each.
In such towns, it is not necessary to force the occupants to wear seat belts in order to reduce the number of deaths.
Per the passage, for the number of deaths to reduce drastically, it is required that every occupant in a car wears a seat belt. i.e., there are no exceptions to this rule.
The reduction in deaths might not hold true even if one occupant is not wearing seat belts. Hence, as per the passage, an exception cannot be made for towns where majority (for example, 70%) of cars have a single occupant.
In a town where most cars have a single occupant, requiring everyone to wear a seat belt is not required to drastically bring down the number of fatalities.
E:The quality of seat belts is not as important in reducing fatalities as is the need for every occupant to be wearing one.
It is more important that every occupant wears seat belt than the quality of seat belts itself.
The passage does not comment on quality of seat belts or their importance in reducing deaths in an accident.
So, we definitely cannot infer this statement from the passage.
This choice talks about a town where majority of cars carry only one person each.
In such towns, it is not necessary to force the occupants to wear seat belts in order to reduce the number of deaths.
Per the passage, for the number of deaths to reduce drastically, it is required that every occupant in a car wears a seat belt. i.e., there are no exceptions to this rule.
The reduction in deaths might not hold true even if one occupant is not wearing seat belts. Hence, as per the passage, an exception cannot be made for towns where majority (for example, 70%) of cars have a single occupant.