Critical Reasoning

During the past five years, more than 5000 Maltanians have drowned in boating accidents. Figures released by the country's Boating Association show that ninety percent of the victims were not wearing life jackets at the time of their accidents. This information indicates that by wearing life jackets, boaters can reduce their risk of drowning if they are involved in a boating accident.
Which of the following best supports the argument above?

1.Most of the drowning victims were not wearing lifejackets at the time of their accidents

2. More than ten percent of those involved in boating accidents were wearing life jackets at the time

3. Most boating accidents do not result in drowning

4. The boating association is not funded by a company that manufactures life jackets

5.Many of the drowning victims were knocked unconscious during their accidents
Please explain answers in detail, thank you.

IMO A
1. Clearly 90% were not wearing.
2. is wrong as 90% not wearing then how wearing > 10%.
3. Just opposing the fact mentioned in first line.
4. Ok not funded but still boating company can buy
5. If they knocked unconscious then how do you know if they drown or not. May be along with life jacket consciousness is required. We cannot say the same from the passage.

danjuma wrote:During the past five years, more than 5000 Maltanians have drowned in boating accidents. Figures released by the country's Boating Association show that ninety percent of the victims were not wearing life jackets at the time of their accidents. This information indicates that by wearing life jackets, boaters can reduce their risk of drowning if they are involved in a boating accident.
Which of the following best supports the argument above?

1.Most of the drowning victims were not wearing lifejackets at the time of their accidents

2. More than ten percent of those involved in boating accidents were wearing life jackets at the time

3. Most boating accidents do not result in drowning

4. The boating association is not funded by a company that manufactures life jackets

5.Many of the drowning victims were knocked unconscious during their accidents
Please explain answers in detail, thank you.

i am between B and E but i think i will choose B

I will go with A...CLearly sates what we require!!

danjuma wrote:During the past five years, more than 5000 Maltanians have drowned in boating accidents. Figures released by the country's Boating Association show that ninety percent of the victims were not wearing life jackets at the time of their accidents. This information indicates that by wearing life jackets, boaters can reduce their risk of drowning if they are involved in a boating accident.
Which of the following best supports the argument above?

1.Most of the drowning victims were not wearing lifejackets at the time of their accidents

2. More than ten percent of those involved in boating accidents were wearing life jackets at the time

3. Most boating accidents do not result in drowning

4. The boating association is not funded by a company that manufactures life jackets

5.Many of the drowning victims were knocked unconscious during their accidents
Please explain answers in detail, thank you.

so what is the answer? OA????

What's the conclusion?

"That by wearing life jackets, boaters can reduce their risk of drowning if they are involved in a boating accident."

A simply repeats the premise that 90% of the victims were not wearing life jackets. Cannot be the answer.

B is out of scope IMO, the fact that more than 10 percent of those in accidents were wearing jackets are irrelevant to the argument that life jackets reduce risk of drowning.

C is out of scope, because the argument is about boating accidents and drowning.

D is a bit tricky, but the argument and conclusion aren't provided by the boating association, it simply provided data without any sign of bias. So the angle of strengthening the data is out.

E IMO is the correct answer. It supports the conclusion that life jackets may reduce risk of drowning because victims of accidents are unconscious, and they cannot swim without life jackets.

Me too E

Many of the drowning victims were knocked unconscious during their accidents shows that they were unable to swim and if they had life jackets they could have atleast floated and not drowned.

i think A . OA pls

danjuma wrote:During the past five years, more than 5000 Maltanians have drowned in boating accidents. Figures released by the country's Boating Association show that ninety percent of the victims were not wearing life jackets at the time of their accidents. This information indicates that by wearing life jackets, boaters can reduce their risk of drowning if they are involved in a boating accident.
Which of the following best supports the argument above?

1.Most of the drowning victims were not wearing lifejackets at the time of their accidents

2. More than ten percent of those involved in boating accidents were wearing life jackets at the time

3. Most boating accidents do not result in drowning

4. The boating association is not funded by a company that manufactures life jackets

5.Many of the drowning victims were knocked unconscious during their accidents
Please explain answers in detail, thank you.

Not sure how people have selected A.
The conclusion clealy is: by wearing life jackets, boaters can reduce their risk of drowning .
clclearly, conclusion is supported by the option E.

Ans should be A....

A) "Most of the drowning people were not wearing lifejacket". So considering this data we know that life jackets could have reduced the accident..

E) "Many of the drowning victims were knocked unconscious during their accidents"- This states that they went unconcious during accident. Don't say whether they had life jackets or not... Even if they had life jackets how the life jacket helps in saving Unconcious victims that is not clear...

danjuma wrote:During the past five years, more than 5000 Maltanians have drowned in boating accidents. Figures released by the country's Boating Association show that ninety percent of the victims were not wearing life jackets at the time of their accidents. This information indicates that by wearing life jackets, boaters can reduce their risk of drowning if they are involved in a boating accident.
Which of the following best supports the argument above?

IMO 5 or E, we are not looking for the conclusion here, we are looking for something that supports this argument. Saying that people were not wearing life jackets still does not provide a reason why, also we are already told this in the statement. If many people were knocked out, a life jacket could help save someone from drowning. What is the OA?

Assumption is an unstated premise, and thus restating a premise can't quality as an assumption.

A is not correct.

ya it may be E

when accidents happens all found unconscious. it means if they are conscious then they can swim and save their life but it is not the case. so if they wear life jackets then they can float even if unconscious and their life can be saved.

so wearing jackets can reduce the risk of life during boat accidents

my pick E

conclusion:by wearing life jackets, boaters can reduce their risk of drowning if they are involved in a boating accident

Which of the following best supports the argument above?

what if drowning victims are unable to either swim to safety or ask for help as they are unconscious.....E explains this.

As for A
its stated in the premise itself that ninety percent of the victims were not wearing life jackets at the time of their accidents....but the issue is how life jackets could help accident victims.

If E is the OA, then I have to revisit my fundamentals

E is going to far by giving specific reason. "Knocked down unconscious" is one reason. There could be many other reasons. For example, the victim didn't know how to swim but the victim was consious. It is completely out of scope to speculate different reasons.

A, however, is not a direct statement from premise. In the premise "During the past five years, more than 5000 Maltanians have drowned in boating accidents. Figures released by the country's Boating Association show that ninety percent of the victims were not wearing life jackets at the time of their accidents ", it is not clearly mentioned that the figure released by the county's Boating Association is all about those 5000 drowing victims. It is possible that 90% of victims that didn't wear jackets were either drowned, killed by high'speed boat or attacked by shark. I think you get my point. However, in A, by using "most" we can make inference about drawning victims. The word " most" could be anything except "none".