The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has ne

Question

The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has nearly doubled in the past 8 years. It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred, because although the number of children aged 4 and under who were killed while riding in cars involved in accidents rose 10 percent over the past 8 years, the total number of serious automobile accidents rose by 20 percent during that period.

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

(A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5.

(B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years.

(C) Children are taking more trips in cars today than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant.

(D) The sharpest increase in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2.

(E) The number of fatalities among adults involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years.

pkshankar · Answer

The author here clearly assumes that a 20% increase in serious automobile accidents should have led to an equivalent increase in the child accidents but as that does not happen, author attributes this to the greater usage of safety belts.
But author here misses a point that what if children aged 4 were seated in only a few cars hence we get a 10% increase. The real reason for that 10% might not be a greater usage of safety belts but rather a fewer number of children in cars.
Option B is the answer

Sent from my SM-N960F using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

rahul6019 · Answer

B is the correct answer as it strengthens link between premise and conclusion by negating alternate possibility of a decrease in proportion of serious accidents involving children that lead to a decrease in number of fatalities.

Choice C is close but looks more of a trap. It does say that number of trips for these children increased suggesting that the probability of them getting involved in accidents also increased but then it goes on saying that still the overall time remained same which reduces the earlier increase back to zero because if time traveled is same, then number of trips does not really matter.

Cbirole · Answer

The answer is B. If we say proportion has remained constant, we clearly assume/say that number of rides of kids below 4 years has increased and fatalities have decreased

Mizar18 · Answer

(B) is correct

If we say that the proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child has remained constant, then this one help us  discard  the possibility that this increase in accidents (10%) happened because we got a greater proportion of accidents involving child vs total number of serious automobile accidents and hence  reinforce   that safety seats helped to get this result.

Krishchamp · Answer

Can someone please explain the question?

ChuHoaiNam2505 · Answer

HI,
The question:
The increase in the use of automobile seats by < 4 years old children has prevented child fatalities because:
- The number of < 4 years old children rose 10% but the total serious accidents rose by 20%.
We want to strengthen the conclusion.
We can strengthen by showing that the number of children involved in serious accidents was increased by more than 10%.
In Choice B: The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years
It means that if there was 1 children involved in each accidents 8 years ago, there is still 1 children involved in each accidents now. Therefore, if the number of serious accidents rose by 20%, the number of children involved in serious accidents also rose by 20%.

Hence, B strengthen the conclusion.

Hope that help!

unraveled · Answer

The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has  nearly doubled  in the past 8 years. It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred, because although the number of children aged 4 and under who were killed while riding in cars involved in accidents  rose 10 percent  over the past 8 years, the total number of serious automobile accidents  rose by 20 percent  during that period.

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

(A)  Some of the automobile safety seats  purchased for children under 4  continue to be used  after the child reaches the age of 5. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(B) The  proportion of serious automobile accidents  involving child passengers has  remained constant  over the past 8 years. - CORRECT. Only then the claim of increase of child fatalities having increased would make sense.

(C)  Children are taking more trips in cars today  than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant. - WRONG. Goes against and thus weakens.

(D) The  sharpest increase  in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(E) The number of  fatalities among adults  involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

Answer B.

agrasan · Answer

The author establishes a cause effect relationship by:
Increase in safety seats --> Prevented child fatalities
and the reason given is total number of serious automobile accidents rose by 20 percent during that period.

The author only talks about  total number  of serious accidents but didn't say what happened with accidents for  children's segment (aged 4 and under) , serious accidents for this segment might have remained same, increased or decreased. If it remained constant or decreased then the author's conclusion is weakened.

(B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years
Option B increases our confidence in the conclusion by saying that serious accidents for the segment had also increased. Think like initial proportion was 25% i.e. 25 serious accidents for children aged 4 and under happened for total 100 serious accidents. If total increased to 200 (argument said it increased) then children's one also increased to 50 as the proportion remained constant.

iamjatinagrawal · Answer

Use numbers sometimes to solve such CR questions.

Suppose, 100 children were using the seats earlier, now 200 use it.
Earlier, 50 were involved in accidents out of which 10 died
Now 10% increase in deaths that means 11 died.
Proportion of kids involved in occident remained same.

50/100 = x/200

x = 100

Out of 100, only 11 died, earlier out of 50, 10 died. Hence (B) strengths the argument. This might seem like a lot of task but it hardly takes do seconds max to do all this.

BongBideshini · Answer

A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5.
Incorrect. This concerns usage after age 5, but the argument is specifically about children aged 4 and under.

B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years.
 Correct.  If child involvement in serious accidents stayed proportional while total serious accidents rose 20%, then children under 4 likely faced a similar rise in accident exposure. Since fatalities rose only 10%, this strongly supports the claim that increased safety-seat use prevented additional deaths.

C) Children are taking more trips in cars today than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant.
Incorrect. More trips but the same total time creates ambiguous exposure and does not directly strengthen the comparison.

D) The sharpest increase in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2.
Incorrect. This does not show that increased seat use reduced fatalities among all children 4 and under.

E) The number of fatalities among adults involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years.
Incorrect. Adult fatality trends do not directly establish the effect of child safety seats on young children.

The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has ne

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

The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has ne

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