Question Description
Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause big accidents, while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in big accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?a)Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a beltb)All drivers should be required by law to wear a beltc)The ratio of big to small road accidents is very smalld)In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seate)On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2025 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause big accidents, while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in big accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?a)Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a beltb)All drivers should be required by law to wear a beltc)The ratio of big to small road accidents is very smalld)In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seate)On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause big accidents, while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in big accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?a)Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a beltb)All drivers should be required by law to wear a beltc)The ratio of big to small road accidents is very smalld)In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seate)On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause big accidents, while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in big accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?a)Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a beltb)All drivers should be required by law to wear a beltc)The ratio of big to small road accidents is very smalld)In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seate)On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause big accidents, while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in big accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?a)Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a beltb)All drivers should be required by law to wear a beltc)The ratio of big to small road accidents is very smalld)In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seate)On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause big accidents, while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in big accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?a)Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a beltb)All drivers should be required by law to wear a beltc)The ratio of big to small road accidents is very smalld)In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seate)On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause big accidents, while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in big accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?a)Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a beltb)All drivers should be required by law to wear a beltc)The ratio of big to small road accidents is very smalld)In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seate)On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause big accidents, while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in big accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?a)Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a beltb)All drivers should be required by law to wear a beltc)The ratio of big to small road accidents is very smalld)In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seate)On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause big accidents, while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in big accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?a)Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a beltb)All drivers should be required by law to wear a beltc)The ratio of big to small road accidents is very smalld)In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seate)On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.