In a car accident, air bags greatly reduce the risk

Question

In a car accident, air bags greatly reduce the risk of serious injury. However, statistics show that cars without air bags are less likely to be involved in accidents than are cars with air bags. Thus, cars with air bags are no safer than cars without air bags.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) assumes, without providing justification, that any car with air bags will probably become involved in an accident

(B) denies the possibility that cars without air bags have other safety features that reduce the risk of serious injury at least as much as do air bags

(C) overlooks the possibility that some accidents involve both cars with air bags and cars without air bags

(D) assumes, without providing justification, that the likelihood of an accident’s occurring should weigh at least as heavily as the seriousness of any resulting injury in estimates of relative safety

(E) takes for granted that all accidents would cause air bags to be deployed

siddhantvarma · Answer

This reasoning is flawed because it  equates the likelihood of an accident  with the overall safety of the car, without considering the  severity of injuries  that might result from accidents in both types of cars. The argument fails to weigh the  seriousness of injuries  in the assessment of safety.

A) Assumes, without providing justification, that any car with air bags will probably become involved in an accident.  
The argument does not claim that all cars with air bags will probably be involved in accidents. It compares the likelihood but does not make this sweeping assumption.

B) Denies the possibility that cars without air bags have other safety features that reduce the risk of serious injury at least as much as do air bags.  
This choice introduces a new consideration (other safety features), which is not directly related to the argument's flaw. The argument does not mention other safety features, so this is not the core issue.

C) Overlooks the possibility that some accidents involve both cars with air bags and cars without air bags.  
While true, this is not central to the flaw in the argument, which is about comparing the safety of air bags versus no air bags, not about the types of cars involved in a single accident.

D) Assumes, without providing justification, that the likelihood of an accident’s occurring should weigh at least as heavily as the seriousness of any resulting injury in estimates of relative safety.  
The argument focuses solely on the  likelihood of accidents  and overlooks the  severity of injuries  when considering safety. It assumes that the occurrence of an accident is as important or more important than how well air bags protect passengers in the event of an accident.

E) Takes for granted that all accidents would cause air bags to be deployed  
The argument does not assume that all accidents will cause air bags to be deployed, so this is not relevant to its flaw.

The correct answer is  D)  as it points out that it ignores the importance of injury prevention, which is crucial to determining safety.

unraveled · Answer

In a car accident, air bags greatly reduce the risk of serious injury. However, statistics show that cars without air bags are less likely to be involved in accidents than are cars with air bags. Thus, cars with air bags are no safer than cars without air bags.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) assumes, without providing justification, that  any car with air bags will probably become involved in an accident  - WRONG. 2nd best choice here. Claiming "any" is a bit going ballistic which is not good.

(B) denies the possibility that cars without air bags have  other safety features that reduce the risk  of serious injury at least as much as do air bags - WRONG. Other features don't matter. Also, its not about cars without air bags but with air bags.

(C) overlooks the possibility that  some accidents involve both cars  with air bags and cars without air bags - WRONG. Exceptions!!! Also, doesn't impacts the conclusion.

(D) assumes, without providing justification, that the  likelihood of an accident’s occurring should weigh at least as heavily as the seriousness of any resulting injury  in estimates of relative safety - CORRECT. Rightly so why air bags are given in a car. Accidents may happen for reasons beyond control of driver/passengers of car with air bags but it is these bags that in the end provide safety. Thus, at crucial juncture the bags may give necessary safety.

(E) takes for granted that all accidents would cause air bags to be  deployed  - WRONG. In a way goes against what we are looking for as in it supports cars with air bags.

Answer D.

SudhanshuC · Answer

Answer D

Cars with airbags = Reduced risk of injury 
 Cars without airbags = Reduced accident counts

Conclusion of the argument as per the author : 
 Cars with airbags are no safer than cars without airbags.

From the above conclusion, this simply means that the author assumes the following: 
  Reduced risk of injury (seriousness of injury) = Reduced accident counts (likelihood of any accident).

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.

In a car accident, air bags greatly reduce the risk

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In a car accident, air bags greatly reduce the risk

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