#8 - On the basis of incontestable proof that car safety

[biskam]

is b incorrect because even if kids are more often taking trips in cars than they were before, if the kids are sitting in safety seats now, we should still be seeing reduced injuries? so the likelihood of kids taking trips doesn't matter?

[nicholaspavic]

Hi biskam,

Yes, even though the trips may be increasing, we should still see a reduced number of children being injured. That is why Answer Option (B) does not help us in this Resolve the Paradox question.

Thanks so much and we hope this helps!

[whardy21]

I got my answer choices down to D and E and chose D. Was D wrong because it didn't address the facts stated in the stimulus. Whether or not the car safety seats prevented all type of injuries doesn't matter because it dosen't address the facts about the ruction of serious injuries. E addresses both parts of the paradox showing how the co existence of the reduction of serious injuries and how if the seats weren't used properly used serious injuries would continue.

[Adam Tyson]

The bigger problem with answer D, whardy21, is that it is talking about the wrong kinds of injuries. The stimulus isn't just telling us that kids in those seats are being injured. It's telling us that they are sustaining the exact kinds of injuries that the seats were designed to prevent! Answer D is about other types of injuries, the kind the seats weren't intended to deal with in the first place. That tells us nothing about why the kids in the safety seats are still being injured in ways that they should not be, IF the seats are being used correctly. Answer E solves the mystery by telling us that parents aren't using them correctly! If they only work when used as directed, and that isn't how they are being used, that would explain why many of the kids in those seats are still getting hurt.

[dbrowning]

Hi,

I missed this question, because I have been working on my pacing in LR, attempting to get to 15 questions answered in 15 minutes. I saw answer choice B and recognized it as a cookie-cutter paradox answer that seemed to resolve the paradox, so I selected it and quickly moved on. In my second pass, I prioritized other more difficult questions. Is B wrong because we have to assume that there is "incontestable proof" that the number of serious injuries is reduced, not the rate of injury?

I am attempting to score in the 170s; given that goal, is it advisable to skip some answer choices in the first 10 questions, even though I may make a mistake like this as a result?

Thanks!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi dbrowning,

Yes, the stimulus said the number of injuries should be reduced, not the rate of injury. B doesn't explain why children in the seats are still receiving the same injuries the car seats were supposed to prevent.

I almost never recommend skipping reading all the answer choices. You are likely to end up with issues just like this--missing questions you'd otherwise have gotten correct. To get you goal score, accuracy must come before speed. You want to think of the easier questions as an easy opportunity for points. You should move through each question as quickly and efficiently as you can. Just keep moving. Even in logic games, where I see a clear answer, I take the extra 6-8 seconds to read all the answer choices. It's saved me more than once.

Hope that helps!
Rachael