Not surprisingly, the medical profession has called for a ban on tackling during school rugby matches. Sales of protective headgear for children to wear during training and matches have also increased. Although parents believe that this equipment will safeguard their offspring, research suggests that it could actually increase the risk of serious injury. While the headgear successfully protects its wearers from minor cuts or bruises, it often fails to reduce the incidence of more serious injuries like concussion. This may be due to the fact that players who are wearing protective headgear are less concerned about getting hurt and, therefore, more prepared to behave recklessly and engage in dangerous tackles. Experts have also expressed concerns about the effect that a ban on tackling in schools will have on the children who continue to play rugby as adults. They believe that, if not coached in safe tackling techniques when young, players will be more likely to sustain serious injuries when they are older.
Which of the following statements does the writer make?
Result:
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Option 3: "Young players who are injured may also have health problems as adults."
Explanation: The text implies that injuries sustained during youth rugby can lead to serious health issues later in life. It mentions that players who are not coached in safe tackling techniques may be more likely to sustain serious injuries as adults, supporting this statement.
Option 1: "School children are always given a choice about whether to play rugby or not."
Explanation: The text does not mention that school children have a choice regarding playing rugby. It states that rugby is often taught in schools, sometimes on a compulsory basis, indicating that participation may not be optional.
Option 2: "Minor injuries are more common than serious injuries during matches."
Explanation: The text highlights that serious injuries, including concussions, are a significant concern, stating that around 10 percent of players suffer concussions each season. It does not support the idea that minor injuries are more common than serious ones.
Option 4: "The usefulness of protective headgear has been disputed."
Explanation: The text discusses how protective headgear, while intended to safeguard players, may actually increase the risk of serious injuries like concussions. This indicates that its effectiveness is indeed disputed, aligning with the statement.
Option 5: "Most parents are reluctant to let their children play rugby at school."
Explanation: The text does not provide any information about parents' reluctance to allow their children to play rugby. It only mentions that parents believe protective headgear will keep their children safe, which does not imply reluctance.
Option 6: "Banning tackling in schools could negatively affect the safety of adult players."
Explanation: The text states that experts are concerned about the impact of banning tackling on children who will play rugby as adults. This suggests that such a ban could lead to increased risks for adult players, supporting the statement.
Option 7: "Protective headgear has sometimes caused cuts and bruises."
Explanation: The text does not mention that protective headgear causes cuts and bruises. Instead, it states that headgear protects against minor injuries but fails to reduce serious injuries, which does not support this statement.
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