CR 2 Questions I need help with

robk100 · Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:25 pm Post subject: CR 2 Questions I need help with

I was wondering if someone could give me a good explanation to the answers of these two questions.

1. Contemporary newspapers carry stories about infanticide - the murder of children - among poor much more frequently than nineteenth century newspapers did. It's clear, then, that due to the fact that less value is placed on human life today, there has been a substantial increase in the incidence of infanticide.

All of the following, if true, are valid objections to the argument above EXCEPT

(A) editors of nineteenth century newspapers were less inclined to carry stories about infanticide than contemporary editors.
(B) there was less interest in, and less newspaper coverage of, the poor in the last century than there is today.
(C) no studies have demonstrated that less value is placed on human life today than in the nineteenth century.
(D) historical police records do not indicate a smaller number of infanticides in the past
(E) studies have indicated that there was less value placed on human life in the nineteenth century than today.

BTW answer is E, i just don't understand why it seems to be a valid objection

2. A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.

The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true?

(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.
(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.
(D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.

Answer is A but i don't understand why.

Thanks to everyone in advance for your help.

sankruth · Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:55 pm Post subject:

Hey,
Q2: Have a look at this link...hope it helps.
http://www.beatthegmat.com/section-2-problem-14-t7097.html#28514

sankruth · Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:19 am Post subject:

Q1: We are looking for something that CANNOT be a valid objection

(A) editors of nineteenth century newspapers were less inclined to carry stories about infanticide than contemporary editors.
This can be a valid obhection as it puts the conclusion in doubt.

(B) there was less interest in, and less newspaper coverage of, the poor in the last century than there is today.
This too puts the conclusion in doubt, hence a valid objection.

(C) no studies have demonstrated that less value is placed on human life today than in the nineteenth century.
Negates the cause identified in the conclusion. Hence a valid objection.

(D) historical police records do not indicate a smaller number of infanticides in the past
Again, negates the conclusion. Hence a valid objection

(E) studies have indicated that there was less value placed on human life in the nineteenth century than today.

However, E too looks like a valid objection. Maybe not as strong as the rest, perhaps a bit of a stretch compared to the rest... (Im struggling here!). I would be grateful if somebody can explain why E is not a valid objection to the argument.

robk100 · Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:18 am Post subject: CR

Thank you for your link Sankruth it was helpful. I still don't get the first question. I got it from "The Insider's Guide to The GMAT CAT, 2nd Edition. It's CR Exercise 3, #9. I don't know if that info will help anyone. Can anyone explain this answer??

sibbineni · Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject:

Contemporary newspapers carry stories about infanticide - the murder of children - among poor much more frequently than nineteenth century newspapers did. It's clear, then, that due to the fact that less value is placed on human life today, there has been a substantial increase in the incidence of infanticide.

All of the following, if true, are valid objections to the argument above EXCEPT

(A) editors of nineteenth century newspapers were less inclined to carry stories about infanticide than contemporary editors.
(B) there was less interest in, and less newspaper coverage of, the poor in the last century than there is today.
(C) no studies have demonstrated that less value is placed on human life today than in the nineteenth century.
(D) historical police records do not indicate a smaller number of infanticides in the past
(E) studies have indicated that there was less value placed on human life in the nineteenth century than today.

IMO is E

(A) (B) (c) (D) are Valid objections

(E)

The fact they mentioned in the question is that less value is placed on human life today.

But Option E says that less value for human life in the nineteenth century than today which is exactly oppposite to the fact mentioned in the question

Here E weakens the argument.

Suggest me if Iam Wrong