There is clear evidence that the mandated use of safety seat

Question

There is clear evidence that the mandated use of safety seats by children under age four has resulted in fewer child fatalities over the the past five years. Compared to the five-year period prior to the passage of laws requiring the use of safety seats, fatalities of children under age four have decreased by 30 percent.

Which one of the following, if true, most substantially strengthens the argument above?

(A) The number of serious automobile accidents involving children under age four has remained steady over the past five years.
(B) Automobile accidents involving children have decreased sharply over the past five years.
(C) The use of air bags in automobiles has increased by 30 percent over the past five years.
(D) Most fatal automobile accidents involving children under age four occur in the driveway of their home.
(E) The number of teenage drivers has increased by 30 percent over the past five years.

I was contemplating between A and B. Why is A favoured over B?

veergmat · Answer

Fatalaties of children < 4 years have decreased by 30 % after the passage of certain laws.
Assumptions: All other factors are unchanged after the implementation or passage of the laws.

For strengthening the argument we need to find the option which supports the assumption.
1) statement supporting the assumption hence correct answer.
2) No. of accidents have decreased . ............... It should remain same for strengthening
3) Air-bags have contributed in lowering the fatality rate............... same as above
4) Irrelevant, nothing to do with the route, no relation with safety belts.
5) No relation between the age of drivers and the premises

I think this question is sub 600 level

Osesie · Answer

Please helps with this question

There is clear evidence that the mandated use of safety seats by children under age four has resulted in fewer child fatalities over the the past five years. Compared to the five-year period prior to the passage of laws requiring the use of safety seats, fatalities of children under age four have decreased by 30 percent.

Which one of the following, if true, most substantially strengthens the argument above?

(A) The number of serious automobile accidents involving children under age four has remained steady over the past five years.
(B) Automobile accidents involving children have decreased sharply over the past five years.
(C) The use of air bags in automobiles has increased by 30 percent over the past five years.
(D) Most fatal automobile accidents involving children under age four occur in the driveway of their home.
(E) The number of teenage drivers has increased by 30 percent over the past five years.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Hello Osesie

The above question is discussed here, please search before posting and post in relevent forum

Thank you!

napolean92728 · Answer

Answer: A 
The correct answer is (A) The number of serious automobile accidents involving children under age four has remained steady over the past five years.

Explanation: 
The argument claims that safety seats have caused a reduction in child fatalities. To strengthen this argument, we need evidence that eliminates alternative explanations for the 30% decrease in fatalities. Option A does exactly this by showing that accident rates remained constant while fatalities decreased. This strongly suggests that the safety seats (rather than fewer accidents) are responsible for saving lives.

Why each other option is incorrect: 
 (B)  This actually weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the decrease in fatalities - if there were fewer accidents involving children overall, this could explain the reduced fatalities without attributing the improvement to safety seats.
 (C)  This weakens the argument by introducing another possible explanation for the decrease in fatalities (air bags rather than safety seats). It creates doubt about whether safety seats deserve credit for the improvement.
 (D)  This information about where fatal accidents typically occur doesn't help establish whether safety seats are effective. It neither strengthens nor significantly weakens the argument about the causal relationship between safety seats and reduced fatalities.
 (E)  An increase in teenage drivers doesn't strengthen the connection between safety seats and reduced child fatalities. This information is irrelevant to evaluating whether safety seats specifically caused the reported decrease in fatalities.

There is clear evidence that the mandated use of safety seat

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

There is clear evidence that the mandated use of safety seat

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