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

Redeem

Plastic sleds

Expert replies
by El Cucu » Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:21 am
In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?

A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.
B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.
C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.
D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled.
E. Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by krisraam » Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:08 pm
IMO A.
Join the discussion

by anjaligeorge1 » Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:36 pm
What's the OA
Join the discussion

by Alara533 » Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:24 pm
IMO A.

Since a few children still use traditional wooden sleds, we can't blame on the plastic sleds for the increased injuries.
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:16 am
imo:B


We need an alternate reason to weaken the argument..


B says..

Not wearing protective gears is the reason...


Do keep an eye on the key words here...

most, a few



Tats the reason A cant be the anser.

thanks.
Join the discussion

by Alara533 » Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:25 am
raunekk wrote:imo:B


We need an alternate reason to weaken the argument..


B says..

Not wearing protective gears is the reason...


Do keep an eye on the key words here...

most, a few



Tats the reason A cant be the anser.

thanks.
We can't blame it on the protective gears because, we dont know whether kids used these gears 10 years ago! B says in general that kids are not wearing protective gears....but it doesn't say whether kids stopped using it right now!
Join the discussion

by raunekk » Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:09 am
B says in general that kids are not wearing protective gears....but it doesn't say whether kids stopped using it right now!




xactly... if they would have stopped it right now then definately wooden sleds would have been the reason for injuries... but that is not the case...
Join the discussion

by El Cucu » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:04 am
anjaligeorge1 wrote:What's the OA
OA is B
Join the discussion

by thestrongest » Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:12 am
IMO C.

C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.

Clearly, platics sleds seem to be more dangerous because that they can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions.

Pls check OA again.
Join the discussion

by hardik.jadeja » Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:02 pm
Its a confusing one.

To get B we have to assume that in last 10 years children have stopped wearing protective gear and it was not the case 10 years back.

To get C we have to assume that people used plastic sleds more compare wooden sleds since plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions.

But I think I'd go with C.

If 100 people used wooden sleds and 10 got injured, on the other hand if 1000 people used plastic sleds and 20 got injured. Though the number of injured is more for plastic sleds, we still have to say plastic sleds are safer.
Join the discussion

by rawatgaurav81 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:21 am
The answer would be B since its the only choice among the options which contradicts author's assumption that plastic sleds are more dangerous.Here the fault has been totally shifted on children not wearing protective gears.Though its not the correct assumption but its the best of the lot.
Join the discussion


by sumitkhurana » Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:15 am
Why not D ?

Since most of the injuries occur because of collisions with trees, it would not really matter as to which sleds are better !!

And the reason for the increase in accidents in something else, not dangerous plastic sleds.
Join the discussion

by NethraN » Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:35 am
I think D will support the conclusion and not refute it because the para clearly states this "harder to steer and slow." about plastic sleds, this indicates that the collisions could have been avoided if steering plastic sleds were easier.

I was not convinced by the justification given for the right answer, which they claim to be C.
Nethra
Join the discussion

by gabriel16 » Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:05 am
It seems to me that C is definitely the best choice. The question asks which “most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited.” The passage cites that plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds. The evidence used to back up this claim is that the number of children injured while sledding is much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

This claim would seemingly have validity if the number of injuries went up but the total number of children and ultimately the time spent sledding stayed the same. However, choice C tells us that plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions, hence the over time spent sledding increases which would increase the number of injuries. Think of this question in terms of percentages as opposed to overall numbers.
Join the discussion