Wunderlitch Park, located in Madison County, has a strict regulation

Question

Wunderlitch Park, located in Madison County, has a strict regulation requiring mountain bicyclists to wear helmets. Recently, a group of bicyclists acknowledged that helmets may prevent injuries to the wearer, but protested claiming the park should only regulate activities that may hurt a third party. Hence, the bicyclists argued that they should have the right to refrain from wearing helmets.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion in the passage?

A. Ninety percent of bicyclists who use Wunderlitch park prefer to wear a helmet to protect themselves in case of an accident.

B. Lawyers for Wunderlitch Park have warned that the repeal of the helmet regulation would lead to an increase in general admission park entrance fees to cover the legal expenses associated with personal injury lawsuits.

C. Motorcyclists in a neighboring county are required to wear a helmet while on the road.

D. Parks that require the use of helmets have a lower percentage of accidents resulting in deaths than parks that don't require the use of helmets.

E. More bicyclists who do not wear helmets are seriously injured in accidents than bicyclists who do wear helmets.

arvind910619 · Answer

Imo B

The argument talks about bicyclists who concedes that wearing helmet will prevent injuries .But they are not in favour of a rule that mandate them to wear helmets in part rather they argue that the park should activities that may hurt other people .
Here a little pre thinking will surely make our job a lot easier than skimming through the options and comparing them .
We have to look for something that makes sure that cyclists are responsibility for the injuries of other.
Option B does pretty well .

ajit_223 · Answer

Premise - Regulate only what hurt a third party
Conclusion: Grant the right to refrain from wearing helmet

To weaken we have to break the linkage between conclusion (right to refrain) and premise (doesn't hurt the third party)

However, D says - "repeal of the helmet regulation would lead to an increase in general admission park entrance fees". Hence, this will hurt the third party.

harikrish · Answer

Wunderlitch Park, located in Madison County, has a strict regulation requiring mountain bicyclists to wear helmets. Recently, a group of bicyclists acknowledged that helmets may prevent injuries to the wearer, but protested claiming the park should only regulate activities that may hurt a third party. Hence, the bicyclists argued that they should have the right to refrain from wearing helmets.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion in the passage?

A. Ninety percent of bicyclists who use Wunderlitch park prefer to wear a helmet to protect themselves in case of an accident.
B. Lawyers for Wunderlitch Park have warned that the repeal of the helmet regulation would lead to an increase in general admission park entrance fees to cover the 
legal expenses associated with personal injury lawsuits.
C. Motorcyclists in a neighboring county are required to wear a helmet while on the road.
D. Parks that require the use of helmets have a lower percentage of accidents resulting in deaths than parks that don't require the use of helmets.
E. More bicyclists who do not wear helmets are seriously injured in accidents than bicyclists who do wear helmets.

Error Analysis:
 
The bicyclists argue that as the public aren't affected, the law shoudn't be imposed.

Option B, weakens the argument saying that the entrance fee of the park has to be raised because the park is paying for the expense of personal injury of the public.

Therefore the answer is Option B.

sobby · Answer

This is indeed a tricky one :
IMO:
Concentrate on below line ;
Recently, a group of bicyclists acknowledged that helmets may prevent injuries to the wearer, but protested claiming the park should only regulate activities  that may hurt a third party ..

In B , the non wearing of helmet is causing entrance fees to rise that in turn is hurting the people financially ....

sandysilva · Answer

Wunderlich Park has a strict regulation that requires mountain bicyclists to wear helmets. Recently, a group of bicyclists acknowledged that helmets may prevent injuries to the wearer, but protested claiming the park should only regulate activities that may hurt a third party. Hence, the bicyclists argued that they should have the right to refrain from wearing helmets.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion in the passage?
 
We need to say that the bicyclists should not be given right to refrain from wearing helmets.

(B) Lawyers for Wunderlich Park have warned that the repeal of the helmet regulation would lead to an increase in general admission park entrance fees to cover the legal expenses associated with personal injury lawsuits.
 This choice says that Park has a financial motive or advantage by compelling bicyclists to wear helmets as the bicyclists may file lawsuits for personal injury expenses.

Kurtosis · Answer

Question Type: Weaken

Conclusion: Bicyclists argued that they should have the right to refrain from wearing helmets

A) Ninety percent of bicyclists who use Wunderlitch park prefer to wear a helmet to protect themselves in case of an accident. - Does not affect the conclusion. Even if 90% of the bicyclists wear helmets, they can still argue for the right to refrain from using helmets.

B) Lawyers for Wunderlitch Park have warned that the repeal of the helmet regulation would lead to an increase in general admission park entrance fees to cover the legal expenses associated with personal injury lawsuits. - Correct.

C) Motorcyclists in a neighboring county are required to wear a helmet while on the road. - Irrelevant

D) Parks that require the use of helmets have a lower percentage of accidents resulting in deaths than parks that don’t require the use of helmets. - Out of context. Argument discusses about injuries and not on deaths.

E) More bicyclists who do not wear helmets are seriously injured in accidents than bicyclists who do wear helmets. - We are just worried about injuries and we do not want to differentiate between serious injuries and normal injuries.

Answer: B

dimmak · Answer

I cannot understand why can we say that option B is correct. This is for me a poor quality question, please correct me if I am wrong but I think that the argument does NOT say anything about what happens with a more expensive fee, it is possible that the attendance remains the same after that... Answer B aims to weak the conclusion by assuming that increase fees will cause bicyclists stop going to the park.

Adi93 · Answer

B is the correct Answer here.
Here the argument is assuming that Bikers should be at fault if only they hurt any other third party due to their actions.

B considerably weakens this Assumption stating that due to legal expenses associated with personal injury lawsuits the part entry fees is being raised, which is causing a problem to third party i.e they are paying extra for some others fault.

+1 if this helps!

Skywalker18 · Answer

Hi Carlgrc, Recently, a group of bicyclists acknowledged that helmets may prevent injuries to the wearer, but protested claiming the park should only regulate activities that may hurt a third party . Conclusion - Hence, the bicyclists argued that they should have the right to refrain from wearing helmets. Type - weaken B. Lawyers for Wunderlitch Park have warned that the repeal of the helmet regulation would lead to an increase in general admission park entrance fees to cover the legal expenses associated with personal injury lawsuits. -->The revocation of the helmet regulation will increase park entrance fees so as to cover legal expenses associated with personal injury lawsuits. Thus, it will hurt a third party. Hope this helps!!

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

The argument’s conclusion is presented in the final sentence, introduced by the key word  “hence” : the bicyclists claim that they shouldn’t have to wear helmets in the park. But despite the wording of the question, it isn’t really the conclusion itself that the test maker wants you to weaken—rather, you must weaken the logic supporting that conclusion. According to this argument, the reason why cyclists shouldn’t be made to wear helmets is that the park should not restrict an activity that doesn’t harm others. The right answer, therefore, will show how not wearing a helmet actually does harm someone else.

The correct answer—(B) —does just that; it shows how cyclists’ not wearing helmets would in fact harm non-cyclists: the harm would be financial.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Wunderlitch Park, located in Madison County, has a strict regulation

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

Wunderlitch Park, located in Madison County, has a strict regulation

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