The government of the state of Bikedom has made it mandatory for cycli

Question

The government of the state of Bikedom has made it mandatory for cyclists to wear helmets as they cycle their way to their destinations on cycle tracks that ensure both speed and freedom from congestion by other vehicles. Through this initiative, the government hopes to reduce injuries on the track and increase the popularity of cycling primarily among the juveniles and youth who already constitute about 80% of all the state's cyclists.

Which of the following, if true, would seriously undermine the purpose of the initiative?
A. A lot of youth who earlier used gearless bicycles have now taken to gear-enabled high-speed biking for fitness as well as for fun.
B. The primary reason for grievous injuries during cycle accidents was not the absence of helmets but the high speed of cyclists.
C. The population of elderly cyclists on the cycle track has increased since the mandate of compulsory wearing of helmets came into force.
D. Injuries have been reduced due to fewer youth opting to wear helmets, which they regarded as highly unfashionable.
E. The proportion of injuries, not related to the head, has increased since the mandate of compulsory wearing of helmets came into force.

(Source=TCYOnline)

KCHINNA · Answer

Think the answer should be B. 
D seems inconsistent to the question.

KCHINNA · Answer

Should be B 
It states that the main cause of grievous injuries is high speed, not lack of helmets.
If true, then mandating helmets misses the real safety problem entirely—meaning the initiative would fail to reduce injuries, which is its core objective.

bb   GMATNinja   MartyMurray  - correct me if I'm wrong please.

Amity007

ReetArora · Answer

Option B only seems to go with the passage! D How?

pappal · Answer

seems bit tricky one, 
A. totally out of context
C. tells about the increase in the population of elderly on tracks after mandate, no effect on the conclusion.
E. talks about the increase in proportion of a particular type of injuries not in general so out.
B. though very tempting, but discusses about grievous injuries not the general ones. so out like E
D. though seems very awkward, not only wins by  negation  but also by fact that without helmet youths will drive slow (as opposite mentioned in the argument with helmets speed increases). so this is an alternate theory that negates the conclusion.
D

Sajjad1994 · Answer

I highly doubt the credibility of this question. I think  (B)  is much better than  (D) . Flawed answer or maybe a typo. Don't Know.

MartyMurray · Answer

The government of the state of Bikedom has made it mandatory for cyclists to wear helmets as they cycle their way to their destinations on cycle tracks that ensure both speed and freedom from congestion by other vehicles. Through this initiative, the government hopes to reduce injuries on the track and increase the popularity of cycling primarily among the juveniles and youth who already constitute about 80% of all the state's cyclists.

This is a plan question. So, it's key to note the plan and the purpose of the plan.

Plan:

made it mandatory for cyclists to wear helmets as they cycle their way to their destinations on cycle tracks that ensure both speed and freedom from congestion by other vehicles

Purpose of the plan:

reduce injuries on the track  and  increase the popularity of cycling primarily among the juveniles and youth  who already constitute about 80% of all the state's cyclists

We see that the idea is that, by making helmets mandatory, the government hopes to accomplish two purposes: reduce injuries and increase popularity.

Which of the following, if true, would seriously undermine the purpose of the initiative?

This is a Weaken question, and though the wording "undermine the purpose" does not quite convey a logical meaning, since the purpose itself would not be undermined, we can tell that the correct answer will be the one that indicates that the plan may not serve its purpose.

A. A lot of youth who earlier used gearless bicycles have now taken to gear-enabled high-speed biking for fitness as well as for fun.

The fact that people are using geared bikes doesn't affect the results of wearing helmets.

Eliminate.

B. The primary reason for grievous injuries during cycle accidents was not the absence of helmets but the high speed of cyclists.

This choice is tempting, but even if the "primary" reason for injuries has not been the absence of helmets, wearing helmets could still result in some reduction in injuries.

So, this choice is probably not correct.

Keep but expect to eliminate.

C. The population of elderly cyclists on the cycle track has increased since the mandate of compulsory wearing of helmets came into force.

An increase in the number of elderly cyclists would not affect the results of wearing helmets. Regardless of who is riding, wearing helmets could still result in a reduction in injuries.

Eliminate.

D. Injuries have been reduced due to fewer youth opting to wear helmets, which they regarded as highly unfashionable.

This choice is not completely logical for two reasons.

One is that the passage says that helmet wearing has been "made mandatory." So, while it's possible that most young people are breaking the law, what this choice says doesn't really make sense in the context of what the passage says since making helmet use mandatory would logically result in an increase rather than a reduction in helmet wearing.

Also, it's not really logical that injuries have been reduced through a reduction in helmet wearing, though I guess it's somehow possible.

We can say that the fact that youth finding wearing helmets unfashionable indicates that mandating helmet use will not serve to "increase the popularity of cycling primarily among the juveniles and youth." So, this choice indicates that the plan will not serve its purpose of increasing popularity.

Regarding the other aspect of the plan, "reduce injuries on the track," I guess, if somehow, injuries have been reduced "due to fewer youth opting to wear helmets," then if the government succeeds in getting youth to wear helmets, the incidence of injuries may increase, rather than decrease. So, for that reason, we could argue that this choice indicates that the plan won't work.

At the same time, since that result doesn't really make sense, this question doesn't quite work.

So, we can keep decide that this choice is the correct answer with the caveat that this question doesn't seem to make sense in the context of the real world and thus does not accurately represent a GMAT Weaken question.

Keep, with some reservations.

E. The proportion of injuries, not related to the head, has increased since the mandate of compulsory wearing of helmets came into force.

Thought the meaning of this choice is not entirely clear because it's poorly worded, if we read this choice as conveying that non-head-related injuries now constitute a greater proportion of injuries, then it seems possible that helmet wearing has served to reduce the incidence of head injuries.

So, if anything, this choice indicates that the plan has served its purpose of reducing injuries.

Eliminate.

So, we could say that (D) is the best answer, but whether this question works is debatable.

namanqqkm · Answer

if youre not satisfied with why B is not the ans, lemme help you. this is classic gmat question and its hard bcos we are not supposed to assume anything out of box and only assume the ans choices as true even if pragmatically it would be false. So, B is saying the primary reason for injuries is not helmet. Now understand that even if it's not helmet, helmets can help reduce the overall injury rate. so B works. 
D is saying the youth not wearing helmet reduced injury rate. and youth = 80%. but does this mean youth wearing helmet inc injury? we dont know. but if Options A,B,C,E are out then D is the choice to go for. however from D we can infer if youth starts wearing helmet we MIGHT (not 100% conclusive) see an inc in injury rate.

Not yet Satisfied. Then understand this the plan is to reduce the injury rate. lets say now injury rate is 10/100 when youth is not wearing helmet. now option D, if youth starts wearing helmet the injury rate might be same or may go up but for sure its not coming down. hence the plan is not successful.

The government of the state of Bikedom has made it mandatory for cycli

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 government of the state of Bikedom has made it mandatory for cycli

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