Critical Reasoning (CR) | Re: The law does not mandate the wearing of protective gear while riding

OFFICIALEXPLANATION

The law does not mandate the wearing of protective gear while riding a bicycle, skateboard or any other unmotorized vehicle. Last year, however, thousands of injuries could have been prevented by the wearing of even just a helmet. Therefore, anyone using an unmotorized vehicle should wear a helmet.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the argument'sconclusion?

A. Concussion is a very dangerous injury that can result in a variety of medicalproblems.

[color=#e74c3c] Incorrect.

To solve this Conclusion Weakening question, first break down the argument. The first two sentences are premises which provide factual data; the last sentence includes a conclusion conjunction (Therefore) so it's the conclusion:

Premise A: by law, wearing protective gear is not necessary
+
Premise B: the wearing of helmets could have prevented many injuries last year
=
Conclusion: helmets should be worn by anyone riding an unmotorized vehicle

Possible assumption:
...

Statistics : Posted by Bunuel • on 26 Feb 2024, 01:30 • Replies 2 • Views 476

---