• 5 Day FREE Trial
Study Smarter, Not Harder

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Practice Test & Review
How would you score if you took the GMAT

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Get 300+ Practice Questions

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
Register now and save up to \$200

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

## During the 1980s and 1990s,

This topic has 14 member replies
kvcpk Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2010
Posted:
1893 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
215 times

#### During the 1980s and 1990s,

Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:42 am
Elapsed Time: 00:00
• Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
During the 1980s and 1990s, the annual number of people who visited the Sordellian Mountains increased continually, and many new ski resorts were built. Over the same period, however, the number of visitors to ski resorts who were caught in avalanches decreased, even though there was no reduction in the annual number of avalanches in the Sordellian Mountains.

Which of the following, if true in the Sordellian Mountains during the 1980s and 1990s, most helps to explain the decrease?

(A) Avalanches were most likely to happen when a large new snowfall covered an older layer of snow.
(B) Avalanches destroyed at least some buildings in the Sordellian Mountains in every year.
(C) People planning new ski slopes and other resort facilities used increasingly accurate information about which locations are likely to be in the path of avalanches.
(D) The average length of stay for people visiting the Sordellian Mountains increased slightly.
(E) Construction of new ski resorts often led to the clearing of wooded areas that had helped to prevent avalanches.

Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
kvcpk Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2010
Posted:
1893 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
215 times
Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:37 am
I couldnt get why Option E is wrong. Clearing of wooded areas helped prevent avalanches. This seems to be reasonable..

Joined
08 Jun 2007
Posted:
535 messages
Followed by:
5 members
Thanked:
87 times
Test Date:
21-08-2010
GMAT Score:
730
Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:41 am
kvcpk wrote:
I couldnt get why Option E is wrong. Clearing of wooded areas helped prevent avalanches. This seems to be reasonable..
Option E is wrong because of this sentence from the passage "there was no reduction in the annual number of avalanches in the Sordellian Mountains."

Clearing of wooded areas did not help prevent avalanches. In fact it cleared wooded areas that had helped to prevent avalanches in past. So the number of avalanches in the Sordellian Mountains must have gone up, resulting in even more injuries to the tourists.

Hope that helps..

Thanked by: Gmatprep13
vivek1110 Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
26 Sep 2009
Posted:
126 messages
Followed by:
2 members
Thanked:
4 times
Target GMAT Score:
750
GMAT Score:
660
Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:55 am
IMO C.

Argument: Number of people visiting increased, so did the no of ski resorts. The number of avalanches remained the same! But the number of people caught in avalanches dropped!

We're asked to explain the discrepancy!

A: The likeliness of the occurrence of an avalanche is irrelevant!
B: Number of building destroyed, also irrelevant!
C: If the ski resorts were strategically built, it would explain the discrepancy!
D: Length of the day? Not even close to making sense.
E: Irrelevant!

_________________
Is caught between a rock and a hard place!

kvcpk Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2010
Posted:
1893 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
215 times
Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:57 am
There are two entities here..
Ski resorts and Sordellian Mountains.

The phrase: "the number of visitors to ski resorts who were caught in avalanches decreased" suggests that the number of vistors who were caught in avalanches when visisting the ski resorts decreased. E explains this by giving reason of clearing wooded areas.

The question is asking for "most helps to explain the decrease?". There is decrease mentioned only about the avalanches associated with Ski Resorts visitors and not Sordellian Mountains visitors. This is the main reason I chose E.

Option C says "People planning new ski slopes and other resort facilities used increasingly accurate information about which locations are likely to be in the path of avalanches." This option is OOS for me as it uses "new ski slopes and other resort facilities ". All that we are warae of as per the passage is "new ski resorts" and not "new ski slopes ". People took increasingly accurate information about locations - So What?? How does it prevent avalanches if there is no path that is proper.

Joined
08 Jun 2007
Posted:
535 messages
Followed by:
5 members
Thanked:
87 times
Test Date:
21-08-2010
GMAT Score:
730
Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:16 am
kvcpk wrote:
There are two entities here..
Ski resorts and Sordellian Mountains.

The phrase: "the number of visitors to ski resorts who were caught in avalanches decreased" suggests that the number of vistors who were caught in avalanches when visisting the ski resorts decreased. E explains this by giving reason of clearing wooded areas.
Now lets go back to option E.

(E) Construction of new ski resorts often led to the clearing of wooded areas that had helped to prevent avalanches.

Since those wooded areas are no more there to prevent the avalanches, the number of avalanches must have gone up. This should result in even more number of people getting caught in avalanches.

kvcpk wrote:
Option C says "People planning new ski slopes and other resort facilities used increasingly accurate information about which locations are likely to be in the path of avalanches." This option is OOS for me as it uses "new ski slopes and other resort facilities ". All that we are warae of as per the passage is "new ski resorts" and not "new ski slopes ".
Don't be so rigid with words. People usually get caught in avalanches when they are doing some outdoor activities. People come to ski resorts for skiing(which happens on ski slopes) and other resort facilities and when they are busy doing that, they get caught in avalanches. So if the new ski resorts designed their resorts in such manner that their ski slopes and areas for other resort facilities do not come in the path of avalanche, then obviously the number people getting caught in avalanches is going to come down.

kvcpk Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2010
Posted:
1893 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
215 times
Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:25 am
Now lets go back to option E.

(E) Construction of new ski resorts often led to the clearing of wooded areas that had helped to prevent avalanches.

Since those wooded areas are no more there to prevent the avalanches, the number of avalanches must have gone up. This should result in even more number of people getting caught in avalanches.

I do not understand why number of people getting caught in avalanches will go up if wooded areas are cleared to prevent the avalanches.[/quote]

kvcpk Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2010
Posted:
1893 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
215 times
Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:31 am
Now I think I am getting what you are trying to say..

Quote:
clearing of wooded areas that had helped to prevent avalanches
I took this in positive sense. Which means, Before clearing of wooded areas, there were avalanches and that clearing wooded areas has prevented them.

But others looked at it negatively - which means - Before clearing of wooded areas, there were no avalanches because wooded areas prevented them. But after clearing them avalanches increased.

Am I right this time? But if that is the case, How am I to interpret it?

Joined
08 Jun 2007
Posted:
535 messages
Followed by:
5 members
Thanked:
87 times
Test Date:
21-08-2010
GMAT Score:
730
Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:40 am
kvcpk wrote:
Now I think I am getting what you are trying to say..

I took this in positive sense. Which means, Before clearing of wooded areas, there were avalanches and that clearing wooded areas has prevented them.

But others looked at it negatively - which means - Before clearing of wooded areas, there were no avalanches because wooded areas prevented them. But after clearing them avalanches increased.

Am I right this time? But if that is the case, How am I to interpret it?
Yes, you are right.

I knew you were reading option E incorrectly. That's the reason why I highlighted the last part of option E in my previous reply.

kvcpk Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2010
Posted:
1893 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
215 times
Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:42 am
But how do we know which way is the right way to read it?

Joined
08 Jun 2007
Posted:
535 messages
Followed by:
5 members
Thanked:
87 times
Test Date:
21-08-2010
GMAT Score:
730
Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:43 am
kvcpk wrote:
But how do we know which way is the right way to read it?
There is only one meaning of option E. I don't see any ambiguity with E.

kvcpk Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2010
Posted:
1893 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
215 times
Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:56 am
I think I will need to use my SC knowledge here.

There are 2 interpretations that can be made:
1. Clearing of wooded areas helped to prevent avalanches
2. Wooded areas helped to prevent avalanches

"clearing of wooded areas that had helped to prevent avalanches."

what does "that" refer to in the above sentence?

"that" refers to "clearing of wooded areas" or "wooded areas"?

If it referes to "wooded areas", then it will match with OG answer. Else, it would contradict OG answer.

As per learning from SC, "that" without a comma preceds the immediately preceding noun. So it should modify "wooded areas".

Let me know if my Interpretation is right.. Thank you!!

Joined
08 Jun 2007
Posted:
535 messages
Followed by:
5 members
Thanked:
87 times
Test Date:
21-08-2010
GMAT Score:
730
Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:15 am
Discussing SC concepts in CR forum.. hmmm... Interesting..!!!!!

As you know "that had helped to prevent avalanches" is a modifier. It is modifying wooded areas here, not the whole phrase "clearing of wooded areas".

We use relative pronoun that when we are referring to a subgroup or a class of things.

A cannon that shoots dead chickens at airplanes has proved helpful to the army.

There are lot of different types of cannons. But since we are talking about a particular subgroup/class of cannons(cannons having capability of shooting dead chickens), the usage of that is appropriate here.

"clearing of wooded areas" doesn't have any subgroup or class. It has to be wooded area. The mountain forest might be having lot of wooded areas but maybe not all of them are preventing avalanches. So we are talking about only those wooded area that are able to prevent avalanches.

Hope that makes sense..

kvcpk Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2010
Posted:
1893 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
215 times
Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:41 am
Discussing SC concepts in CR forum.. hmmm... Interesting..!!!!!

As you know "that had helped to prevent avalanches" is a modifier. It is modifying wooded areas here, not the whole phrase "clearing of wooded areas".

We use relative pronoun that when we are referring to a subgroup or a class of things.

A cannon that shoots dead chickens at airplanes has proved helpful to the army.

There are lot of different types of cannons. But since we are talking about a particular subgroup/class of cannons(cannons having capability of shooting dead chickens), the usage of that is appropriate here.

"clearing of wooded areas" doesn't have any subgroup or class. It has to be wooded area. The mountain forest might be having lot of wooded areas but maybe not all of them are preventing avalanches. So we are talking about only those wooded area that are able to prevent avalanches.

Hope that makes sense..
Yeah.. I was thinking the same.. Thanks for confirming.. But a simple misread led to lot of confusion... I hope I dont repeat this..

### Best Conversation Starters

1 Vincen 180 topics
2 lheiannie07 65 topics
3 Roland2rule 49 topics
4 ardz24 40 topics
5 LUANDATO 16 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

### Most Active Experts

1 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

146 posts
2 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

103 posts
3 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

100 posts
4 EconomistGMATTutor

The Economist GMAT Tutor

92 posts
5 Jay@ManhattanReview

Manhattan Review

79 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts