PT6.S3.Q7 - Can someone explain to me why the answer isn't D?

andreaefthy

Can someone explain to me why the answer isn't D?
My thinking was that D has to be assumed because if helmet wouldn't prevent the fatality then there would be no point in requiring the helmet since they would just be dead anyway? Morbid thinking but...

Stimulus:
Head injury is the most serious type of injury sustained in motorcycle accidents. The average cost to taxpayers for medical care for nonhelmeted motorcycle-accident victims is twice that for their helmeted counterparts. Jurisdictions that have enacted motorcycle-helmet laws have reduced the incidence and severity of accident-related head injuries, thereby reducing the cost to taxpayers. Therefore, to achieve similar cost reductions, other jurisdictions should enact motorcycle-helmet laws. For the same reason jurisdictions should also require helmets for horseback riders, since horseback-riding accidents are even more likely to cause serious head injury than motorcycle accidents are.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the author's conclusion concerning helmets for horseback riders depend?

(A) Medical care for victims of horseback-riding accidents is financial drain on tax funds.

(B) The higher rate of serious head injury suffered by victims of horseback-riding accidents is due to the difference in size between horses and motorcycles.

(C) The medical costs associated with treating head injuries are higher than those for other types of injury.

(D) Most fatalities resulting from horseback-riding and motorcycle accidents could have been prevented if the victims had been wearing helmets.

(E) When deciding whether to enact helmet laws for motorcyclists and horseback riders, the jurisdiction's primary concerns is the safety of its citizens.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

SSBM1000

Hello,

D is incorrect because it says that most fatalities from horseback-riding and motorcycle accidents could have been prevented if they had been wearing a helmet. We don't need it to be most since the stimulus never mentions anything about the majority of injuries being prevented, and it also doesn't talk about fatalities either. If it had said it prevents some head injuries, then it would be the correct answer, but since it uses most and classifies what it's talking about incorrectly, D is incorrect.

Facts_or_Feelings

@andreaefthy, here is my quick analysis:

Rephrased stimulus to my own words:
In motorcycle accidents = head injury = most serious. Med care non-helmeted = 2X avg cost to taxpayers than helmeted. Areas with helmet laws = reduction in incidence and severity of accidents = reduced cost to tax payers. So, for similar cost reductions, other areas should enact helmet laws. Areas should also require helmets for HSBR. HSBR = more likely to cause serious head injury than motorcycles.

So, I’m looking for enactment and requirement are the same thing. I’m looking for enactment/requirement is not more expensive than med care costs. I’m looking for HSBR is like motorcycle accidents. I’m looking for HSBR costs taxpayers.

a. Med care for victim of HSB drains tax funds - BOOM.
b. Higher rate of serious head injury suffered by HSB is due to diff in size btw horses and motorcycles. Rate of injury is not an issue. Also, how do I really know this about sizes? This is asking me to measure and what not.
c. Med costs of treating head injuries are higher than other injuries. Great, how do I know this? I know nothing about other injuries except that motorcycle head injuries cost taxpayers more than other injuries. But I don’t know about head injuries in general. Don’t try to draw comparisons where comparisons don’t exist and don’t appeal to my beliefs, answer choice c!
d. Most fatalities from HSB and motorcycle could be prevented if victims wore helmets. I mean that is great but how do I know enactment/requirement = enforcement and compliance? You are only giving me half the picture.
e. When enacting helmet laws, area’s primary concern is safety of citizens. Primary? The stimulus tells me that we should reduce costs and now you tell me the primary reason.

andreaefthy

Thank you, these explanations make a lot of sense!