Recent research indicates that wearing helmets can significantly lower the risk of head injuries among children riding bicycles. In response, several regions have enacted laws mandating that all children under 10 years old wear helmets while cycling. Despite this, statistics show that the number of head injuries among these children has not decreased as anticipated.

Which of the following statements, if true, could help clarify this surprising outcome?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

Many parents do not enforce helmet use among their children.

The number of children cycling has increased since helmet laws were implemented.

The cost of helmets is prohibitive for many families, leading to fewer purchases.

Helmets are not effective against all types of head injuries, which explains the ongoing incidents.

Correct

Improper use of helmets, such as not fastening the chin strap, is common among children.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Preview

Official Explanation

Official

To understand why head injuries among children wearing helmets have not decreased, we need to consider factors that could contribute to this phenomenon. The statement that best explains the situation is that 'Helmets are not effective against all types of head injuries, which explains the ongoing incidents.' This suggests…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

ArunavaMar 24, 2025

thanks for the answer

ÇağrıJan 26, 2025

thank you taking time to upload it!

FranciscoOct 3, 2024

This is exactly what I needed to practice

RohitJan 11, 2024

Thank you very much!

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can complete the last sentence of an argument in a way that is logically consistent with it.

Common trap

Choosing an option that sounds plausible but contradicts the argument or introduces new information.