Critical Reasoning

Hello,

Can someone Opine on the below question:

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?
A) Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls.
b) League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents
involving such fouls.
c) Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls.
d) 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.
e) 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.

Thanks.

The answer should be E.


Because the players wouldnt do anything that would harm their chances of getting in to allstar.

E is the correct answer, but I was contemplating D as well because of the language used in option E. I felt it was a bit extreme - "Most players...."

jaxis wrote:The answer should be E.


Because the players wouldnt do anything that would harm their chances of getting in to allstar.

D is the most common answer choice that you will find in the OG 10,11 and 12. If a plan is successful somewhere else (region, team, experiment), there is no gurantee that it will successful in the argument in question. Similarly, if a plan was sucessful at some point in time, it not necessarily means that it will be successful in future. When you see an answer choice in this fashion (even though very tempting), eliminiate this.

Now, E is actually correct. In order for the plan to be effective, we want "majority" of players to follow this new rule. "Most" is very appropriately used here to bolster this reasoning. In order for the plan to be successful 100%, I would use "All" ( another extreme pronoun). But OG never fashions its choice to throw clear giveaway. Also, in this question, if you would have seen "some", then I would be more concerned.

Why B cant be correct ??

I am confused with B,D ?

My reasoning for B and D -

B -- if refrees cant identify a foul as a flagrant foul then the plan will be of no use.

D - since similiar plan was successful in some other league, it does not gurantee that it will be successfl in youth hockey league as well.



Please explain why B is incorrect ?

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".

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

E is the correct answer.

saurabh_maths wrote:Why B cant be correct ??

I am confused with B,D ?

My reasoning for B and D -

B -- if refrees cant identify a foul as a flagrant foul then the plan will be of no use.

D - since similiar plan was successful in some other league, it does not gurantee that it will be successfl in youth hockey league as well.

Please explain why B is incorrect ?

Let me raise questions against B without concerning 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 without referring B (means you cannot drag those trained untrained referees while stating your thoughts against E ). Then you can visualize and will have clear the thought process.

PS: Please do not overlap the concepts from different different options. Do it like Data sufficiency. When at an option only that option and premises nothing else

Thanks Vishal. I see what you mean, it makes perfect sense.

Thanks to others as well who contributed to the post.

vishalj wrote:D is the most common answer choice that you will find in the OG 10,11 and 12. If a plan is successful somewhere else (region, team, experiment), there is no gurantee that it will successful in the argument in question. Similarly, if a plan was sucessful at some point in time, it not necessarily means that it will be successful in future. When you see an answer choice in this fashion (even though very tempting), eliminiate this.

Now, E is actually correct. In order for the plan to be effective, we want "majority" of players to follow this new rule. "Most" is very appropriately used here to bolster this reasoning. In order for the plan to be successful 100%, I would use "All" ( another extreme pronoun). But OG never fashions its choice to throw clear giveaway. Also, in this question, if you would have seen "some", then I would be more concerned.