Mayor of Middletown: Two years ago, in order to improve the safety of

Question

Mayor of Middletown: Two years ago, in order to improve the safety of our town's youth, I led the charge for a law requiring all bicycle riders to wear helmets when riding within city limits. My opponents claim the law is a failure because, last year, we had a higher incidence of bicycle accident victims with severe head injuries than in the previous year. The more important statistic, however, is the bicycle accident fatality rate, which has dropped nearly 30 percent since the law passed. Clearly, the helmet law has been a success.

Which of the following, if true, would best support the mayor's claim that the helmet law has been a success?

A. If accident victims do not die as a result of a head injury, they often suffer from permanent brain damage.

B. While only 15% of all bicycle accidents resulting in injury occur as a result of a collision with a motor vehicle, those accidents represent 90% of fatal accidents.

C. In bicycle accidents, injuries to hands, knees, and elbows are far more common than head injuries.

D. Typically, fatality rates for bicycle accidents victims who sustain serious head injuries are twice as high when the victims are not wearing helmets as opposed to when they are.

E. The effect of the helmet law in Middletown is typical; other towns also experienced a higher incidence of head injuries but a lower fatality rate.

mgcon · Answer

Straight D. It's the only statement that strengthens the argument directly.

A is out of scope. B is out of scope, since it has nothing to do with wearing a helmet. C seems like a trap option, but D supports the claim in a much comprehensive manner. 
E is completely out of scope.

AlexGenkins1234 · Answer

IMO, it's not that straight - specifically regarding A.

Let's take an example:
- year 1: avg 10 fatal accidents, avg 10 head injuries
- year 2 (people with helmets): avg 5 fatal accidents, avg 15 head injuries
- One could claim that since less people had fatal accident but still suffered from head injuries, that this option does support the mayor's claim.

mgcon · Answer

Yes, you're right. I did not think of it this way. If I did, I might have chosen A on exam day.

dhairya18 · Answer

Option A: If accident victims do not die as a result of a head injury, they often suffer from permanent brain damage.

Analysis: Incorrect. This points to a severe negative outcome for survivors. Instead of supporting the "success" of the law, it suggests that the decrease in deaths has led to an increase in long-term disability, which could actually be used to argue against the law’s success.

Option B: While only 15% of all bicycle accidents resulting in injury occur as a result of a collision with a motor vehicle, those accidents represent 90% of fatal accidents.

Analysis: Incorrect. This provides data on the causes of accidents but does not address the effectiveness of helmets. It fails to explain why the injury rate rose while the fatality rate dropped.

Option C: In bicycle accidents, injuries to hands, knees, and elbows are far more common than head injuries.
Analysis: Incorrect. This is a distraction. The argument is specifically concerned with head injuries and fatalities; the frequency of limb injuries is irrelevant to whether the helmet law is working.

Option D: Typically, fatality rates for bicycle accidents victims who sustain serious head injuries are twice as high when the victims are not wearing helmets as opposed to when they are.

Analysis: Correct. This explains the "success." If a head injury is twice as likely to be fatal without a helmet, then wearing a helmet allows a person to survive a crash that would have otherwise killed them. This explains why we see more "injured" people (survivors) and fewer "fatalities."

Option E: The effect of the helmet law in Middletown is typical; other towns also experienced a higher incidence of head injuries but a lower fatality rate.

Analysis: Incorrect. This merely states that the trend is a common one. It doesn't provide the logical reason why the law is successful or how the helmets are causing the change in statistics.

Adit_ · Answer

Option A is indeed irrelevant IMO.
There is no mention of the usage of helmet or not in that case.
It is an extreme outlier but almost certain to not be an answer but we have option D anyway which is miles better than option A.

Mayor of Middletown: Two years ago, in order to improve the safety of

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

Mayor of Middletown: Two years ago, in order to improve the safety of

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