Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
08 Jun 2014, 22:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
74% (01:29) correct
26%
(01:52)
wrong
based on 517
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A proposed ordinance requires that all cyclists wear a helmet when riding a bike. However, one cycling enthusiast argued that since more than ninety percent of bike-related accidents do not cause more than a scrape, mandatory helmet use would only marginally decrease the number of serious injuries caused by cycling.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the cycling enthusiast's argument?
A. Most cyclists do not currently own bike helmets.
B. The cost of buying a proper bike helmet is significantly less than possible medical costs due to injury.
C. Helmets have not proven useful in preventing head trauma in biking accidents since the force of the accident often causes the helmet to fall off.
D. In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the number of injuries due to bike accidents was less than the national average.
E. Most of the serious injuries resulting from bike accidents occur due to head trauma.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the cycling enthusiast's argument?
A. Most cyclists do not currently own bike helmets.
B. The cost of buying a proper bike helmet is significantly less than possible medical costs due to injury.
C. Helmets have not proven useful in preventing head trauma in biking accidents since the force of the accident often causes the helmet to fall off.
D. In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the number of injuries due to bike accidents was less than the national average.
E. Most of the serious injuries resulting from bike accidents occur due to head trauma.
09 Jun 2014, 22:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
This question is a good example of a trick that is very common within GMAT critical reasoning questions. The question includes a subtle but very important scope shift. The cycling enthusiast argues that most bicycle accidents are minor (do not cause more than a scrape), and therefore mandatory helmet use would only marginally decrease the number of serious injuries caused by cycling. The scope shift is between accidents in general and serious accidents. If over 90% of accidents do not cause more than a scrape, then obviously these accidents are not causing serious injuries. In order to weaken this argument, we need to demonstrate that helmets would help reduce serious injuries in the other sub-10% of more serious accidents.
A - Out of scope. Whether bicyclists currently own a helmet is completely irrelevant to whether helmet use would decrease the number of serious injuries.
B - Out of scope. Costs of helmets vs. medical care has nothing to do with this argument.
C - OPPOSITE. This Strengthens the argument. It does not weaken it. Be on the lookout for traps like these.
D - Out of scope. Number of injuries there vs. other areas is irrelevant. We simply care about whether the new ordinance would reduce injuries.
E - Nails it. If most serious injuries are due to head trauma, then it would make sense that mandatory helmet usage would reduce serious injuries. This weakens the argument effectively, and is the correct answer.
A - Out of scope. Whether bicyclists currently own a helmet is completely irrelevant to whether helmet use would decrease the number of serious injuries.
B - Out of scope. Costs of helmets vs. medical care has nothing to do with this argument.
C - OPPOSITE. This Strengthens the argument. It does not weaken it. Be on the lookout for traps like these.
D - Out of scope. Number of injuries there vs. other areas is irrelevant. We simply care about whether the new ordinance would reduce injuries.
E - Nails it. If most serious injuries are due to head trauma, then it would make sense that mandatory helmet usage would reduce serious injuries. This weakens the argument effectively, and is the correct answer.
General Discussion
08 Jun 2014, 22:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
A proposed ordinance requires that all cyclists wear a helmet when riding a bike. However, one cycling enthusiast argued that since more than ninety percent of bike-related accidents do not cause more than a scrape, mandatory helmet use would only marginally decrease the number of serious injuries caused by cycling.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the cycling enthusiast's argument?
A. Most cyclists do not currently own bike helmets.
B. The cost of buying a proper bike helmet is significantly less than possible medical costs due to injury.
C. Helmets have not proven useful in preventing head trauma in biking accidents since the force of the accident often causes the helmet to fall off.
D. In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the number of injuries due to bike accidents was less than the national average.
E. Most of the serious injuries resulting from bike accidents occur due to head trauma.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the cycling enthusiast's argument?
A. Most cyclists do not currently own bike helmets.
B. The cost of buying a proper bike helmet is significantly less than possible medical costs due to injury.
C. Helmets have not proven useful in preventing head trauma in biking accidents since the force of the accident often causes the helmet to fall off.
D. In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the number of injuries due to bike accidents was less than the national average.
E. Most of the serious injuries resulting from bike accidents occur due to head trauma.
