OE


The mayor claims the law is a success because the accident fatality rate has dropped nearly 30% since the law passed. Opponents claim the law is a failure because more people have suffered from severe head injuries since the law passed. The answer choice that supports the mayor’s claim
will rebut the opponents’ claim or somehow weaken its effect. While choice (A) may be true, it does not address the mayor’s claim that the helmet law in particular has been successful in its goal to protect bicycle riders. Choice (B) is tempting because it offers a compelling reason why the town might want to enact a helmet law in the first place. However, reasons to enact the law are out of the argument’s scope, which concerns the success of the already enacted law. This choice does not provide any information allowing you to assess the success (or failure) of the helmet law.

Furthermore, choice (B) introduces “motor vehicles,” which are also out of scope. Choice (C) may be tempting because the goal of the law is to protect the town’s youth, and, presumably, it is desirable to limit all kinds of injuries. However, the focus of the argument is on a helmet law. Choice (D) is correct—when bicyclists suffer serious head injuries, the chances of dying are twice as high for those not wearing helmets. The converse is that people with head injuries are less likely to die from those injuries if they were wearing a helmet. In other words, some of the injured would have been on the fatality list instead had they not been wearing helmets. This supports the mayor’s case by showing that the premise used by the mayor’s opponents does not actually indicate a failure in the law. Regarding choice (E), the fact that the results are
similar in other towns means merely that the outcome is predictable in some way; it does not necessarily indicate success.