#7 - Head injury is the most serious type of injury

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (A)

This stimulus contains extensive background information on the subject of motorcycle head-injuries, but the basic idea is that jurisdictions enact laws requiring helmets for motorcyclists in order to reduce cost to taxpayers.

The argument is that, since horseback-riding accidents are even more likely to cause serious head-injury, jurisdictions should enact helmet laws for horseback riders as well, and similarly reduce costs.

The argument makes an analogy, and does cover the issue of whether the head-injuries are comparable in likelihood. However, we have no idea that the total costs are similar, so this argument requires information about the cost of head injuries from horseback-riding accidents.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This choice establishes that there is a similar cost situation. If horseback-riding accidents don't create a significant drain on taxpayers, it is unlikely that making any laws about helmets will save taxpayers money, so this response is an essential assumption.

Answer choice (B): Since what causes horseback-riding accidents to be worse is not an issue, this choice is irrelevant, and incorrect. If you work to make this choice relevant, you should realize that it might serve to suggest that horseback-riding accidents are simply so much worse that a helmet might not help much, and that somewhat weakens the idea that a law would save money.

Answer choice (C): The cost of other injuries is not a relevant issue, and this choice is incorrect. If the medical costs for head injuries were no greater than those for other injuries, helmets might still save taxpayers significant monies.

Answer choice (D): The argument is about saving money for taxpayers, not preventing fatalities, so this response is irrelevant, and incorrect. On a darkly amusing note, if the people are killed instantly, there are probably fewer medical costs.

Answer choice (E): Since the stimulus is primarily concerned with the cost to taxpayers, this response, which claims that the primary concern should be safety, is not relevant. The conclusion of the stimulus was that the enacting of laws would save taxpayers money.

[Johnclem]

HI,
if this were a main point question . What would be the main point of the author ? - I see this problem as two separate argument in one . ( one for motorcycle and one for horse back riding )

Thank you
John

[Nikki Siclunov]

John,

This is correct. This argument has a two-pronged conclusion: other jurisdictions should enact motorcycle-helmet laws, and also - for the same reason - they should also require helmets for horseback riders. Basically, the conclusion is that both motorcycle riders and horseback riders should wear helmets.

Thanks,

[12sunsets]

Hi,
The reason why I had crossed out A as the correct answer was because horseback-riding accidents felt too general. Accidents could include broken bones and not necessarily head injuries. And those types of accidents would not be necessarily a financial drain on tax funds. Why is my thinking wrong?

Thanks,
Karla

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Karla,

You’re right to note that “horseback-riding accidents” in answer (A) could include broken bones, and might not include head injuries. When you write,

And those types of accidents would not be necessarily a financial drain on tax funds. Why is my thinking wrong?

this seems to be in tension with the language of (A). The types of accidents referred to in (A) would necessarily be financial drains on tax funds, because (A) states “Medical care for victims of horseback-riding accidents is a financial drain on taxes.” (emphasis added)

If we take (A) to be true, we can see that it is an assumption required of the argument. The conclusion the question asks about—regarding helmets for horseback riders—seems to make a jump in the argument. The argument starts out making the claim that jurisdictions should enact motorcycle-helmet laws because accidents are more costly to taxpayers when riders are not wearing helmets. It then makes an additional conclusion about horseback riding in the sentence “For the same reason, . . .” However, the argument never established the “same reason”—i.e., savings to taxpayers—exists in the case of horseback riding. So what (A) does is it establishes that high costs of medical care for horseback riding accidents is indeed an issue—as in the motorcycle context. It thus allows the “for the same reason” language to make sense.

Lastly, if you apply the Assumption Negation technique to (A), the argument would fall apart. If medical care for horseback riding accidents were not a financial drain, then the conclusion about horse-rider helmets would not follow. It wouldn’t follow because of the “for the same reason” language—since the negated (A) would mean that the reason (savings to taxpayers) was absent in the case of horseback riding accidents.

[12sunsets]

Hi Luke,
I see the jump now. Thanks for the clarification!
Karla

[biskam]

The reason I chose D is because the last sentence doesn't explicitly state that there's a similar issue for horse back riders when they don't wear helmets, aka that it is more dangerous... so I thought of this as the "jump" that needed to be reconciled.

Any help please?

[James Finch]

Hi Biksam,

The last sentence does use head injuries from horseback-riding accidents as a premise, just as the earlier argument about motorcycle helmets used head injuries due to motorcycle accidents as a premise for its conclusion. So in both arguments, the head injury aspect is already covered.

Instead what is missing from the horseback-riding conclusion is the financial incentive for the helmet. We need this because the conclusion explicitly states it is based on "the same reasons," aka the same premises as the motorcycle helmet argument. Since we already have the head injury premise, the missing premise is the financial incentive, which is what (A) gives us.

Hope this helps!

[Blueballoon5%]

Hi Karla,

You’re right to note that “horseback-riding accidents” in answer (A) could include broken bones, and might not include head injuries. When you write,

And those types of accidents would not be necessarily a financial drain on tax funds. Why is my thinking wrong?

this seems to be in tension with the language of (A). The types of accidents referred to in (A) would necessarily be financial drains on tax funds, because (A) states “Medical care for victims of horseback-riding accidents is a financial drain on taxes.” (emphasis added)

If we take (A) to be true, we can see that it is an assumption required of the argument. The conclusion the question asks about—regarding helmets for horseback riders—seems to make a jump in the argument. The argument starts out making the claim that jurisdictions should enact motorcycle-helmet laws because accidents are more costly to taxpayers when riders are not wearing helmets. It then makes an additional conclusion about horseback riding in the sentence “For the same reason, . . .” However, the argument never established the “same reason”—i.e., savings to taxpayers—exists in the case of horseback riding. So what (A) does is it establishes that high costs of medical care for horseback riding accidents is indeed an issue—as in the motorcycle context. It thus allows the “for the same reason” language to make sense.

Lastly, if you apply the Assumption Negation technique to (A), the argument would fall apart. If medical care for horseback riding accidents were not a financial drain, then the conclusion about horse-rider helmets would not follow. It wouldn’t follow because of the “for the same reason” language—since the negated (A) would mean that the reason (savings to taxpayers) was absent in the case of horseback riding accidents.

Hi Luke! Thanks for the explanation. Could you clarify one more time the issue of the broadness in answer choice A. I also eliminated this answer choice because "horseback-riding accidents" seem to be too general (out-of-scope). I am still struggling to see how this is a necessary assumption for the specific issue of head injuries.

Thanks!!

[Adam Tyson]

I'm not sure what you mean about the broadness of answer A, blueballoon. The stimulus establishes that horseback-riding accidents are even more likely than motorcycle accidents to result in serious head injuries. For this reason, the author thinks we should apply a similar solution to the one proposed for motorcycle riders - legislation requiring the use of helmets. What's missing in the argument is information sufficient to claim that the two things - horseback-riding accidents and motorcycle-riding accidents - are sufficiently similar in all relevant ways. The motorcycle helmets argument is based on saving taxpayer money, and so for the analogy to hold we need to know that requiring helmets for people riding horses will lead to similar financial savings. Answer A gives us that missing piece of information, without which the analogy falls apart and the argument with it.