Head injury is the most serious

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct73% picked this

   Medical care for victims of horseback-riding accidents is a financial drain

   Why this is right

   One of the similarities the author is assuming is that there is money to be saved on horseback riding injuries. If those injuries are currently paid by rich people's private healthcare, then whether a horseback rider wears a helmet or not doesn't really affect the city. If medical care for horseback-riding injuries isn't a financial drain on taxpayers, then there'd be no taxpayer cost-saving benefit in passing helmet laws. And that weakens the author's argument, since she said we should enact these laws for the same reason (reducing cost to taxpayers).

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   73%
2. B

   Irrelevant Causality1% picked this

   The higher rate of serious head injury suffered by victims of horseback-riding accidents is due to the difference in

   This is speculating the causal backstory to a premise. We know that horseback-riding accidents have a higher rate of serious head injury. It doesn't matter to the author's argument whether that's because of the difference in size between horses/motorcycles, or difference in size between horseback riders and motorcycle riders, or the type of terrain they each tend to be on, or any other reason. The logic is simply, "We saved money on motorcycle head injuries by requiring helmets. Horseback riding head injuries are even more common. So let's require helmets there too and save some money."

   1%
3. C

   Irrelevant Comparison7% picked this

   The medical costs associated with treating head injuries are higher than those for other

   This has the classic "out of scope comparison" wording, other than [what we were talking about]. This argument was about head injuries and was never comparing them to other types of injuries. Trap answers love to act like "the only thing we talked about" is the only thing that has the traits we discussed / or the most important thing / or the most prevalent thing.

   7%
4. D

   Too Strong15% picked this

   Most fatalities resulting from horseback-riding and motorcycle accidents could have been prevented if the victims

   Too Strong: most Out of Scope: fatalities (D) is about fatalities, not medical costs or financial implications. The argument is about cost reduction, not death prevention. And the word "most" is famously wrong on Necessary Assumption, 98% of the time. It rarely makes a crucial difference to an argument whether something would be true in 49% of cases vs. in 51% of cases.

   15%
5. E

   Opposite (if anything)4% picked this

   When deciding whether to enact helmet laws for motorcyclists and horseback riders, the jurisdiction’s primary concern is the

   The only concern mentioned in the argument that motivates the decision to enact these laws is cost reduction to taxpayers.

   4%