Loading question...
You are in free guest mode. Timed Practice Revision List Attempt History Progress Tracking Create a free account to unlock these tools
Prev Next
Practice Listening: Multiple Choice, Multiple Answers ID: #4079 Medium Helmet law
Instructions ›
Listen to the recording and answer the question by selecting all the correct responses. You will need to select more than one response.
Jerry Seinfeld once said, “The stupidest thing is a helmet law, the point of which is to protect a brain that is functioning so poorly it's not even trying to prevent the cracking of the skull it's in.” But helmet laws for kids, who may not have considered their skulls as deeply as Jerry did, aren’t so dumb. That’s according to a new study in a publication from the Chocrane Collaboration, which is an international organization that evaluates health care research. The review looked at five studies of kids bike-helmet laws. One big 10 year study in California found that bike-related traumatic brain injury in kids dropped more than 18 percent after the state’s bike helmet law was enacted. A Canadian study looked at almost 10,000 bike related hospital admissions and found a 45 percent drop in childhood head injuries in provinces that passed helmet laws. Provinces without helmet laws also saw a drop in the same period, but only half as much. And three other studies found that helmet laws do indeed persuade kids to wear their helmets, with increases in compliance ranging from 45 to 84 percent.

What does the speaker say about the main benefits observed after implementation of helmet law?

* Click on the correct answers

Result:

AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Option 1: "Traumatic brain injury related to 2-wheelers dropped"

Explanation: The text states that a 10-year study in California found a more than 18 percent drop in bike-related traumatic brain injuries after the helmet law was enacted. This directly supports the claim that traumatic brain injuries related to 2-wheelers decreased, aligning with the main idea of the text regarding the effectiveness of helmet laws.

Option 2: "Protection from ankle injuries"

Explanation: The text does not mention ankle injuries at all. It focuses specifically on head injuries related to bike accidents, making this option irrelevant and unsupported by the text.

Option 3: "Accidents decreased noticeably"

Explanation: While the text discusses reductions in injuries, it does not explicitly state that the number of accidents decreased. The focus is on the reduction of injuries due to helmet laws, not on the overall accident rate, which makes this option misleading.

Option 4: "Major change in health care research"

Explanation: This option is not supported by the text. The focus is on the specific findings of the studies regarding helmet laws and their impact on children's head injuries, rather than a broad change in health care research.

Option 5: "Hospital admissions related to kids' head injuries fell down"

Explanation: The text mentions a Canadian study that found a 45 percent drop in childhood head injuries in provinces that passed helmet laws, which implies a decrease in hospital admissions related to these injuries. This aligns with the main benefits observed after the implementation of helmet laws.

Option 6: "Cost effective remedies to trauma have been found"

Explanation: The text does not discuss cost-effective remedies for trauma. It focuses on the impact of helmet laws on injury rates, making this option irrelevant and unsupported by the information provided.

The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.

Sign in to read the full explanation

With a free account: Retry and compare every attempt.
Be the first! No community answers here yet. Submit yours and help others learn.
Saving...