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

Redeem

1000CR Test 4 Q16

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:44 am
Thanked: 1 times

1000CR Test 4 Q16

by its_me07 » Sat Feb 23, 2008 3:14 pm
i think OA should be E rather than D

During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis of those figures, it can be concluded that it was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay at home as a civilian.
Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United States in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas
(B) Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths
(C) Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries
(D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths
(E) Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces.[/spoiler]
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 7:58 am
Thanked: 4 times

by joshi.komal » Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:57 pm
Hi its_me,

Whenever you are attacking a CR note down the limiting words of argument while diagramming (assuming you know what diagramming means).
In this argument the limiting words are just the 'number of deaths'. The argument has taken these numbers as the only basis and concluded that it was safe to go overseas in armed forces.

From simple maths you know that
50 % of 4 = 2 and 2 % of 100 = 2

Ringing any bells???

Well the point is that just number of death are not sufficient to conclude about safety. If you are able to select any answer choic which might give you an idea about the ratio or %age of the deaths then that answer choice would weaken it. Keeping this in mind scan the answer choices.

(A) Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United States in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas
Nops...this would not weaken the conlusion as the conclusion is about members of armed forces died overseas.

(B) Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths
Expressing all as a % of total deaths would not serve the purpose

(C) Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries
Out of scope

(D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths
Bingo this is what we want...but still scan another choice.

(E) Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces."
Deaths caused by accidents...is it mentioned in the passage? Will this comparison give us the desired info...Nops.

So the OA is D. and not E :)
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:44 am
Thanked: 1 times

by its_me07 » Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:34 am
Thanks Komal.




Paresa.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 am

by peter.p.81 » Tue May 10, 2016 11:35 pm
i still feel D should be the answer
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1