A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti

Question

A safety report indicates that, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent in those areas in which strict laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts have been passed. In a certain city seat belt laws have been in effect for two years, but the city's public safety records show that the number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same.

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city public safety records?

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city public safety records?

(A) Two years ago speed limits in the city were increased by as much as 15 kph (9 mph).
(B) The city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its yearly total of traffic deaths, whereas two years ago it did not.
(C) In the time since the seat belt laws were passed, the city has experienced a higher than average increase in automobile traffic.
(D) Because the city's seat belt laws have been so rarely enforced, few drivers in the city have complied with them,
(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts.

himanshujovi · Answer

Why not B which introduces a new category of accident victimes - pedestrian walkers who obviously have no bearing on seat belts ?

abhinavism · Answer

A safety report indicates that, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent in those areas in which strict laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts have been passed. In a certain city seat belt laws have been in effect for two years, but the city's public safety records show that the number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same.

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city public safety records?

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city public safety records?
(A) Two years ago speed limits in the city were increased by as much as 15 kph (9 mph).
(B) The city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its yearly total of traffic deaths, whereas two years ago it did not.
(C) In the time since the seat belt laws were passed, the city has experienced a higher than average increase in automobile traffic.
(D) Because the city's seat belt laws have been so rarely enforced, few drivers in the city have complied with them,
(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts

a) Increase in speed limit can be a reason for the increase in road accidents and hence for the increase in no of traffic deaths(Incorrect)
b) Pedestrian deaths were not included in traffic deaths two years before , hence there is an increase in the no of count of traffic deaths(Incorrect)
c) increase in automobile traffic can be a reason for increase in no of traffic deaths(Incorrect)
d) non compliance of seat belt law can also be a reason increase in no of traffic deaths(Incorrect)
e) Death of people due to not wearing seat belts ........does not explains the increase in no of Traffic deaths hence correct

OptimusPrepJanielle · Answer

A safety report indicates that, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent in those areas in which strict laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts have been passed. In a certain city seat belt laws have been in effect for two years, but the city's public safety records show that the number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same.

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city public safety records?

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city public safety records?

The way to approach this would be to formulate a question, then eliminate the answer choices that provide a reasonable answer to your question. The question is, "Why haven't traffic fatalities decreased in the passed two years although the seat belt law should decrease fatalities (according to the safety report)?" 
(A) Two years ago speed limits in the city were increased by as much as 15 kph (9 mph).  Greater speed limits could increase or maintain the number of fatal accidents 
(B) The city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its yearly total of traffic deaths, whereas two years ago it did not.  The inclusion of pedestrian fatalities could counter a decrease in seat belt wearing driver fatalities 
(C) In the time since the seat belt laws were passed, the city has experienced a higher than average increase in automobile traffic.  More traffic means more accidents. 
(D) Because the city's seat belt laws have been so rarely enforced, few drivers in the city have complied with them,  If drivers aren't wearing seat belts, the number of fatalities could remain the same 
 (E)  In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts.  This is a separate group of people. We are looking at all drivers not those who were killed in car accidents.

arnabs · Answer

i think this is a 700 level question because for a moment i was stuck between A, C and E for the fact that i had not read the question stem and conclusion correctly; my bad.

. Rereading the question clicked me that C is out anyways, now remain A and E. I was not sure about A initially but then this is how i eliminated A. A did not give a clear picture or it left the argument dangling. if the speed limit was increased by 15 kph, it was quite prossible that initially the speed limit was lets say 15 kph, and revising the speed makes it 30kph. Now 30 kph is not a great speed limit. But is was also possible that the initial speed limit was lets say 50 kph, after revision it became 65 kph(which is pretty fast). now that left an ambiguity in the option, hence eliminated. best answer E. kudos if you like.

sobby · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   GMATNinjaTwo 
need help to understand option E ...

kumarparitosh123 · Answer

What the question stem is actually asking ??
Very convoluted language.
Can anyone pls explain what the question really wants..

Sent from my Lenovo TAB S8-50LC using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

A safety report indicates that, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent in those areas in which strict laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts have been passed. In a certain city seat belt laws have been in effect for two years, but the city's public safety records show that the number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same.

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city public safety records?

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city public safety records?

(A) Two years ago speed limits in the city were increased by as much as 15 kph (9 mph).
(B) The city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its yearly total of traffic deaths, whereas two years ago it did not.
(C) In the time since the seat belt laws were passed, the city has experienced a higher than average increase in automobile traffic.
(D) Because the city's seat belt laws have been so rarely enforced, few drivers in the city have complied with them,

(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts. This only says that why many people died but this does not define why the rate increased while it decreased in other city. while the rest of the choice make sense in expalining why the rates increased the question asks about the choice which does not expalain.

EwokBanshee · Answer

For this question we are trying to find the answer which does not provide a reason why THIS city would have not seen the decrease in deaths that the average city did. Most of these answers provide reasons why the deaths would increase, thus counteracting the expected decrease from the law.

(A) Two years ago speed limits in the city were increased by as much as 15 kph (9 mph).  Higher speeds would increase deaths. 
(B) The city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its yearly total of traffic deaths, whereas two years ago it did not.  A larger scope of fatalities would increase the number counted. 
(C) In the time since the seat belt laws were passed, the city has experienced a higher than average increase in automobile traffic.  More traffic=more deaths 
(D) Because the city's seat belt laws have been so rarely enforced, few drivers in the city have complied with them.  If the law didn't change, neither would the deaths.

(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts.  The question asks why THIS city is different from the average city. This answer does not explain why this city maintained the statistic. It explains that the law didn't work, but not why.

sunny91 · Answer

for E - since most of the people died were found not wearing seatbelts- this expalins that law si not properly followed and that's why the number of deaths remained the same. Please help me to understand where am i lacking?

EwokBanshee · Answer

If most of the people who died were not wearing seatbelts, it proves the law's validity. It does not prove why the law did not help  at all.  It does not say that everyone is not wearing seatbelts, just those who died.

GMATNinja · Answer

Thanks for the explanations!

The discrepancy we are trying to explain is that, in a city that passed seat belts laws two years ago, the number of traffic deaths per year has NOT changed even though, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent in those areas in which strict laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts have been passed. Why did the laws have no effect in this city even though, on average, such laws lead to a 7 percent decline in traffic deaths?

Choice (E) might explain why traffic fatalities would likely decline if more people wore seatbelts. However, why did the number of traffic deaths in this city remain the same after passing seat belt laws even though, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent when such laws are passed? Choice (E) does not help to explain this apparent discrepancy and can be eliminated.

GMATNinja · Answer

And welcome to GMAT Club,  EwokBanshee !!

nightblade354 · Answer

Bumping for discussion. Fun LSAT question!

Salsanousi · Answer

Hi  sandersal

The discrepancy is why there is no decrease even though the law is in effect?

It remained the same.

Answer choice B introduces pedestrians.

Say for example 2 years ago there were 100 fatalities and now it is 93 right?

The inclusion of the pedestrian fatalities may explain why it remained the same.

So we need something that does not explain why it remained the same.

Posted from my mobile device

Palladin · Answer

Laws were in effect for the past two years but option B states that the city  now  includes pedestrian fatalities in its report.
Isn't option B irrelevant since the pedestrian fatalities are added at present and not 2 years ago?

GMATNinja · Answer

In an average city, strict seat belt laws  decrease  the number of traffic deaths. In this city, however, there has been no such decrease since the laws were enacted two years ago. How can (B) help explain this discrepancy?
 
(B) tells us that the city has "now"  added another category  of fatality to include in its statistics about traffic deaths. So even if seat belts laws have reduced other kinds of traffic deaths in the past two years, this reduction could be balanced out by the additional pedestrian fatalities that are now counted in the total tally of traffic deaths.

Consider this example: 
   Two years ago,  there were not strict seat belt laws in place in this city, and only driver and passenger deaths were included in the city's traffic fatality statistics.  
  Now,  strict seat belt laws are in place. The total numbers of driver and passenger deaths are LOWER than the number of similar fatalities two years ago, as expected! However, now pedestrian deaths are counted toward the total fatalities -- thus  inflating  the total tally and explaining why traffic fatalities have remained the same despite the strict seat belt laws.

The additional category included in the most recent reports explains why overall fatalities have not gone down despite the enactment of strict seat belt laws. Because (B) helps resolve the discrepancy, it is not the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

warrior1991 · Answer

GMATNinja   generis   nightblade354 
The crux of the story is that the fatality rate should have declined by 7%. However, in a city , for the past 2 years number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same.

Option E says:--

This option says that those people who got killed were not wearing seat belts. Had they wore seat belts, they would be safe.
The number of deaths remaining same therefore is because of people not wearing seat belts.

I think this option resolves the discrepancy. So this should not be the answer as we are asked to find an option that DOES NOT help resolve the discrepancy.

Please help!!

Aviral1995 · Answer

"This option says that those people who got killed were not wearing seat belts. Had they wore seat belts, they would be safe." 
The number of deaths may decrease as well if people wore the seatbelts. Therefore E is not correct

Panther2596 · Answer

Hey,
Here you to give importance to both "true" and "Not" in the question

A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards