The law does not mandate the wearing of protective gear while riding

Question

The law does not mandate the wearing of protective gear while riding a bicycle, skateboard or any other unmotorized vehicle. Last year, however, thousands of injuries could have been prevented by the wearing of even just a helmet. Therefore, anyone using an unmotorized vehicle should wear a helmet.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument's conclusion?

A. Concussion is a very dangerous injury that can result in a variety of medical problems.

B. Although a law has not been formed, many cyclists and skateboarders do wear protective gear out of their own wish to stay safe.

C. It has been proven that helmets restrict vision especially of objects that are at the side or behind the person wearing one.

D. The market for protective gear is expanding rapidly.

E. New materials are being used to create helmets that are lighter and more comfortable than ever.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

dhart · Answer

A. kind of supports, not what we want.
B. Although a law has not been people do it on their own wish partially supports!.
C. It has been proven that helmets restrict vision , it's kind of against. correct !.
D. The market for protective gear is expanding rapidly , people may buy for liking also support 
E. New materials are being used to create helmets , its talk about variety kind of supports more wearable more usage may be.

Minka99 · Answer

This was an easy  C !

We want to weaken the conclusion that  anyone using an unmotorized vehicle should wear a helmet .
C is the only answer which speaks against helmets as it describes them as potentially dangerous since they can restrict vision.
A) this makes us want to advocate for helmets more which is opposite of what we want
B) many cyclists and skateboarders already wear helmets - that means they are important which also does not weaken
D) more protective gear being sold means more people are buying them, making them important - same as B, this strengthens not weakens our conclusion
E) helmets are getting better and better - opposite of what we are looking for

Nipungupta9081 · Answer

The answer is C

Every other statement is either telling about the market or completely unrelated thing.

Vivek1707 · Answer

A. This makes the argument stronger. Serious concussions are another reason to wear helmets.
B. If people already choose to wear protective gear, that actually supports the idea that helmets are useful.
C. Correct This gives a downside to wearing helmets: restricted vision could make accidents more likely. So the benefit of preventing injuries isn't the whole story.
D. A growing protective-gear market doesn't tell us whether wearing helmets is actually safer.
E. Lighter, more comfortable helmets make people more likely to wear them, so this supports the conclusion.

counterclash1 · Answer

Correct Answer: C

ARGUMENT CORE:
- Premise: Helmets could have prevented thousands of injuries last year.
- Conclusion: Therefore, anyone using an unmotorized vehicle should wear a helmet.

LOGIC PATHWAY:
To weaken a normative recommendation ("X should do Y"), show a hidden downside, trade-off, or unintended consequence of Y that makes the advice bad or dangerous.

OPTION ANALYSIS:
- Option A: Incorrect. Out of scope; emphasizes severity of head injury.
- Option B: Incorrect. Describes current behavior, not whether they SHOULD wear them.
-  Option C: CORRECT. Shows a major drawback (impaired vision) that creates safety risks, weakening the universal recommendation. 
- Option D: Incorrect. Out of scope market trends.
- Option E: Incorrect. Shows positive helmet developments, which supports rather than weakens.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The law does not mandate the wearing of protective gear while riding a bicycle, skateboard or any other unmotorized vehicle. Last year, however, thousands of injuries could have been prevented by the wearing of even just a helmet. Therefore, anyone using an unmotorized vehicle should wear a helmet.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument's conclusion?

A. Concussion is a very dangerous injury that can result in a variety of medical problems.

Incorrect.

To solve this Conclusion Weakening question, first break down the argument. The first two sentences are premises which provide factual data; the last sentence includes a conclusion conjunction (Therefore) so it's the conclusion:

Premise A: by law, wearing protective gear is not necessary
+
Premise B: the wearing of helmets could have prevented many injuries last year
=
Conclusion: helmets should be worn by anyone riding an unmotorized vehicle

Possible assumption: helmets can only help reduce the amount of injuries

Weakening Data: ?

You are required to find data that weakens the view that helmets should be worn by anyone using an unmotorized vehicle. The correct answer could be one that exposes the argument's assumption.

This answer choice supports the author's conclusion by showing how serious the injuries caused were and, therefore, implying that they must be ceased by the wearing of helmets. Focus on the conclusion and remember that you are looking for a statement that will weaken it.

B. Although a law has not been formed, many cyclists and skateboarders do wear protective gear out of their own wish to stay safe.

Incorrect.

This answer choice neither strengthens nor weakens the argument's conclusion. The fact that some people choose to wear protective gear does not weaken the conclusion that everyone should.

C. It has been proven that helmets restrict vision especially of objects that are at the side or behind the person wearing one.

This answer choice attacks the argument's assumption by showing a negative aspect of wearing a helmet. If a person wearing a helmet can't see very well, he or she may are more prone to accidents.

D. The market for protective gear is expanding rapidly.

Incorrect.

To solve this Conclusion Weakening question, first break down the argument. The first two sentences are premises which provide factual data; the last sentence includes a conclusion conjunction (Therefore) so it's the conclusion:

Premise A: by law, wearing protective gear is not necessary
+
Premise B: the wearing of helmets could have prevented many injuries last year
=
Conclusion: helmets should be worn by anyone riding an unmotorized vehicle

Possible assumption: helmets can only help reduce the amount of injuries

Weakening Data: ?

You are required to find data that weakens the view that helmets should be worn by anyone using an unmotorized vehicle. The correct answer could be one that exposes the argument's assumption.

This answer choice neither strengthens nor weakens the argument's conclusion. Since the conclusion has nothing to do with the protective gear market, a statement about it cannot help us with our task: weakening the conclusion.

E. New materials are being used to create helmets that are lighter and more comfortable than ever.

Incorrect.

This answer choice supports the author's conclusion by giving us another reason why helmets should be worn: they're now lighter and more comfortable than ever. Focus on the conclusion and remember that you are looking for a statement that will weaken it.

The law does not mandate the wearing of protective gear while riding

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 law does not mandate the wearing of protective gear while riding

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

The law does not mandate the wearing of protective gear while riding