## Don’t lose your progress!

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

## Up to 90+ points GMAT score improvement guarantee

### The best guarantee you’ll find

Our Premium and Ultimate plans guarantee up to 90+ points score increase or your money back.

## Master each section of the test

### Comprehensive GMAT prep

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

## Schedule-free studying

### Learn on the go

Study whenever and wherever you want with our iOS and Android mobile apps.

# Critical Reasoning: Conclusion Weakening Questions

Recent research conducted in City X shows that children who are not fastened by safety belts are more likely to be injured in the case of a car accident than children who are fastened by safety belts. Belted-in children in the passenger seat are more likely to be injured than belted-in children in the back seat although safety belts always lower the chances of being injured. It is, therefore, recommended that children always be seated in the back seat and have their safety belts fastened.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the above conclusion?

Well done!

[[snippet]]

This answer choice weakens the conclusion by showing that there is a disadvantage to seating a child in the back seat. The fact that children in the back seat usually unfasten their belts means that by sitting in the back, they are in extreme danger. This point weakens the conclusion that the back seat is the safest.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice strengthens the conclusion. It presents a drawback of seating children in the passenger seat, thus strengthening the conclusion that it is recommended that children be seated in the back seat. However, you are required to weaken this recommendation.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion because it does not help us decide between seating children in the back seat and seating them in the passenger seat. The fact that there are other ways/products that can further lower the risk of injury from a car accident is irrelevant to our task of weakening the conclusion.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice neither weakens nor strengthens the conclusion as there is no comparison between the percentage of children who were seated in the back seat and were injured and the percentage of children who were seated in the passenger seat and were injured. Thus, we do not know whether 20% (i.e., the percentage of children seated in the back seat who were injured) is a higher or lower percentage than the percentage of children who sustained minor injuries as a result of a car accident and were seated in the passenger seat. Therefore, this answer choice does not favor one seat over another and cannot weaken the conclusion.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion because it does not help us decide between seating children in the back seat and seating them in the passenger seat. The fact that City X has more accidents with children in cars is irrelevant to our task. This comparison between City X and other cities does not help us weaken the conclusion.

Children who sit in the passenger seat tend to distract the driver's attention, thus increasing the likelihood of a car accident.
Children who are seated in the back seat usually unfasten their seat belts.
Specially designed safety seats for children also help prevent injury in the case of an accident.
City X has a higher percentage of car accidents involving children than any other part of the country.
Of all the cases included in the research, 20% of the children who were seated in the back seat and had their seat belts fastened sustained minor injuries as a result of a car accident.