Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less li

Question

Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause "big accidents", while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in "big" accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.

Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?

A. Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a belt
B. All drivers should be required by law to wear a belt
C. The ratio of "big" to "small" road accidents is very small
D. In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seat
E. On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.

VBudhew · Answer

IMO A

if we dont continue to force the use of seat belts then it may lead to accidents of cautious drivers by the reckless drivers , therefore , the reasoning of " driving style leads to accidents " is damaged

Fingerscrossed123 · Answer

Can someone breakdown the question also, its very roundabout and would like to learn more how to simplify these types of wordings

winterschool · Answer

Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause "big accidents", while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in "big" accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.

Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?

A.  Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a belt   Correct

best of the rest

B. All drivers should be required by law to wear a belt  Incorrect

it is a suggestion

C. The ratio of "big" to "small" road accidents is very small  Incorrect

not related with wearing seat belts

D. In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seat  Incorrect

fatal accidents in front seat and back seat are irrelevant

E. On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.  Incorrect

insurance premiums are irrelevant

Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less li

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

Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less li

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