BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

MGMAT test CR question

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:46 pm
Thanked: 3 times

MGMAT test CR question

by shreeman » Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:51 am
Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the league have become concerned with the number of flagrant fouls occurring during league games. This past season, the number of flagrant fouls was double the number from the season before. League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls.

Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the officials' plan will be effective?

1. Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls.
2.League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls.
3 Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls.
4 A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.
5 Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times
Followed by:24 members

by shovan85 » Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:01 am
According to the passage Suspension will be imposed on the players. In order to make the plan effective we need to find out an option which says "the player has the fear of getting suspended and so he will not play flagrant foul game".

1. Just an info, does not help the plan.
2. The fouls will be reported but it will not help decreasing the fouls.
3 Parents support this, but they are not playing. End of the day it depends on the player.
4 This is an info that states the outcome of such rules.
5 Left after POE. Players will have a fear of getting suspended.

IMO 5
If the problem is Easy Respect it, if the problem is tough Attack it
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:46 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by shreeman » Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:20 am
flagrant foul ==> suspended -> it means a player will not play (he may be suspended from few games or whatever) --> this itself will deter player from committing flagrant foul. Isn't the punishment of getting suspended not enough to deter a player from commiting foul??

now taking option B. <League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls> if refrees are not trained to recognize the foul then a player will not be suspended so this is the most important thing for the success of the plan (you can say this is the assumption of the argument)

but how E is correct? if a refrees doesn't recognize that a player has committed foul then he won't be suspended and he will be selected for the All star team. So the success of the plan depends only on the fact that players are recognized of flagrant foul. once they are recognized they will be suspended and this will deter them from committing foul.

please correct my thought process.

but anyway OA is E.
Top
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times
Followed by:24 members

by shovan85 » Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:34 am
shreeman wrote:flagrant foul ==> suspended -> it means a player will not play (he may be suspended from few games or whatever) --> this itself will deter player from committing flagrant foul. Isn't the punishment of getting suspended not enough to deter a player from commiting foul??

now taking option B. <League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls> if refrees are not trained to recognize the foul then a player will not be suspended so this is the most important thing for the success of the plan (you can say this is the assumption of the argument)

but how E is correct? if a refrees doesn't recognize that a player has committed foul then he won't be suspended and he will be selected for the All star team. So the success of the plan depends only on the fact that players are recognized of flagrant foul. once they are recognized they will be suspended and this will deter them from committing foul.

please correct my thought process.

but anyway OA is E.
OK!!! let me raise questions against B without concerning E and you try questioning against E without referring B (means you cannot drag those trained untrained referees while stating your thoughts against E )?

My question against B: If referees point out proper fouls then how do you know players will be suspended from the game? May be the guy who is playing flagrant is son of the coach of the team? If the referee has a grudge on some specific player then.. I can raise so many questions without mentioning any concerns about E.

Try to do the same against E. Then you can visualize and will clear the thought process.

PS: I think you are overlapping the concepts from different differnt option. Do it like Data sufficiency. When at an option only that option and premises :)
If the problem is Easy Respect it, if the problem is tough Attack it
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1