In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile accidents are typically more severe than in Europe, where laws...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile accidents are typically more severe than in Europe, where laws require a different kind of safety belt. It is clear from this that the United States needs to adopt more stringent standards for safety belt design to protect automobile passengers better.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile accidents are typically more severe than in Europe, where laws require a different kind of safety belt. |
|
| It is clear from this that the United States needs to adopt more stringent standards for safety belt design to protect automobile passengers better. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with a fact about injury differences between the US and Europe, then immediately jumps to a policy solution without exploring other possible causes
Main Conclusion:
The United States needs to adopt more stringent standards for safety belt design
Logical Structure:
The argument assumes that since Europe has different safety belts AND fewer severe injuries, the safety belts must be the cause. This is a classic correlation-causation leap - we're missing the connection between these two facts
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken EXCEPT - This is asking us to find the answer choice that does NOT weaken the argument. Four choices will weaken it, and one won't.
Precision of Claims
The argument makes a causal claim linking safety belt differences to injury severity differences, and recommends policy changes based on this assumed connection.
Strategy
Since this is an EXCEPT question, we skip the normal prethinking process. Instead, we need to understand that we're looking for the one answer choice that either strengthens the argument, has no effect on it, or is irrelevant - while the other four choices will all weaken the argument by providing alternative explanations for why US injuries are more severe than European injuries.
This weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for why European injuries are less severe. If Europeans wear safety belts more frequently, then the lower injury severity could be due to higher usage rates rather than different safety belt designs. This suggests that the US might not need different safety belt standards but rather better compliance with existing requirements.
This weakens the argument by offering another alternative explanation - driver training. If European drivers are better trained to react during accidents, this could explain the lower injury severity without crediting the different safety belt designs. The argument's recommendation for new safety belt standards becomes less compelling.
This weakens the argument by suggesting that car construction differences, not safety belt differences, could explain the injury severity gap. If European cars are simply built more safely, then changing US safety belt standards might not address the real cause of more severe injuries.
This does NOT weaken the argument because it addresses accident frequency, not injury severity when accidents occur. The argument is specifically about how severe injuries are when accidents do happen, not about how often accidents occur. This information doesn't provide an alternative explanation for the injury severity difference that the argument attributes to safety belt design.
This directly weakens the argument by providing evidence that contradicts the proposed solution. If US states that already tried European-style safety belts saw no improvement in injury severity, this undermines the argument's recommendation that the US should adopt more stringent safety belt standards.