Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
Most bicycle helmets provide good protection for the top and back of the head, but little or no protection for the temple regions on the sides of the head. A study of head injuries resulting from bicycle accidents showed that a large proportion were caused by blows to the temple area. Therefore, if bicycle helmets protected this area, the risk of serious head injury in bicycle accidents would be greatly reduced, especially since _________.
among the bicyclists included in the study's sample of head injuries, only a very small proportion had been wearing a helmet at the time of their accident
even those bicyclists who regularly wear helmets have a poor understanding of the degree and kind of protection that helmets afford
a helmet that included protection for the temples would have to be somewhat larger and heavier than current helmets
the bone in the temple area is relatively thin and impacts in that area are thus very likely to cause brain injury
bicyclists generally land on their arm or shoulder when they fall to the side, which reduces the likelihood of severe impacts on the side of the head
情景:大部分的自行车头盔都为骑车人的头顶和后脑提供了很好的保护,但是对头两侧的太阳穴区域却几乎没有保护措施。一项研究表明,由自行车事故导致的头部伤害往往是因为对太阳穴的撞击导致的。因此,如果自行车的头盔能够保护这个区域的话,自行车事故给头部带来重伤的可能性将会大大减小。
推理:由于结论句和前提句说的是两件事,并且结论是事件的结果,所以本题为因果推理。
顺序的因果逻辑:因为由自行车事故导致的头部伤害往往是因为对太阳穴的撞击导致的,所以如果自行车的头盔能够保护这个区域的话,自行车事故给头部带来重伤的可能性将会大大减小
(因)前提:由自行车事故导致的头部伤害往往是因为对太阳穴的撞击导致的
(果)结论:如果自行车的头盔能够保护这个区域的话,自行车事故给头部带来重伤的可能性将会大大减小
选题方式:因果推理只有一个评估方向,简而言之,即(由于本题问的是加强,所以答案选项需在“取非”后满足),反驳推理文段中的结论。
选项分析:
A选项:在接受研究的头部受伤的骑车人中,只有一小部分在出事故的时候戴了头盔。本选项讲的是大家不喜欢戴着头盔,和戴头盔会不会受伤无关。
B选项:即使是平时戴头盔的骑车人,也对头盔的作用了解非常少。了解与否和头盔是否可以起到作用无关。
C选项:保护太阳穴的头盔会更大且更重。本选项讨论的是头盔的特性,不是头盔的防护效果。
D选项:Correct. 太阳穴部分的骨头都很薄,因此对这个部分的撞击很容易导致脑部伤害。如果太阳穴本身就不易受到伤害,那么我们就算保护了,也并没有增加多少不受伤的几率。
E选项:自行车手一般是用胳膊或者肩膀着地,减少了头部受伤的可能性。无论自行车手的习惯是什么,用头盔都能进一步减少他们受伤的概率。
题目中出现了统计数据,要加强推理的话,给统计数据找茬的都不是答案,排除A。
描述无差别事实的不是答案,排除E。
题目中的结论是“要保护temple area”,答案要给出个支持这个结论的理由,D说的是temple area本身就比较脆弱需要保护。
BC都是无关项。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论