Inference question : Help

In additon to what Garima says, I will say that you try to challenge other 4 choices and they fade away in front of C.

C is the answer.

This is an inference type or a parallel reasoning question. The most difficult in critical reading and reading comprehension sections of GMAT follower grad admission exam - GRE and the pure GMAT content applicable critical reasoning section.
try analyzing wrong choices - why A through E can be wrong and one answer only is correct
a) this is an extreme choice or assumes too much. We are left to compare training with equipment given that the equipment has been provided in the stimuli text, whereas here we face comparison of training with the equipment without assuming that the equipment has been provided or not. To prove this let's turn to stimuli which says that both are important, but training is more important provided that the equipment has been provided already;
b)this is too narrow choice, we are told that people who are trained experience fewer injuries and not that they do not sustain injuries at all;
c) let's leave out this choice for a moment as we are evaluating our question (we will turn to answer choice c later) to employ the higher older thinking as Brian Galvin explained here: https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/10/ ... r-thinking
d) here we are presented so called "rotten fruit" choice. Remember when we make shopping in pazaar we are offered by the seller who wants to take advantage of us the bad or spoiled fruits in hopes that we can't recognize them as long as we don't taste them or don't know for sure what's bad in them to make them spoiled. The same here we are told that rock climbing and scuba diving are examples of high-risk activities, note "are more risky than any other activities" - because the expression "any other" assumes everything, even high-risky activities. So it turns out in choice d that rock climbing and scuba diving can be more risky that high-risk activities too? clearly incorrect
e) this is out of scope choice, that is not in any place in the stimuli (text) we are told that people with the latest equipment neglect training. Instead we are told somewhere in the stimuli that people are poorly trained and have the best equipment run risk of injury. This is however not to be understood as people who have the best equipment (always) have poor training. So out of scope and incorrect as a and b answer choices above.

Now with the answer choice c we have - The safety benefits of the latest equipment can be offset by inadequate preparation.

We can understand from answer choice c that even if the latest equipment is provided, its benefits can not disallow people to run risk of injury yet. Why? Because of inadequate training. That's exactly what was reasoned in our stimuli (text). Answer choice c is correct!

praveen_gmat wrote: The OA is C. But I disagree. Preparation and Education are not same. Preparation according to me is out of scope. Why should one not eliminate C based on this logic?

In the last line of the question its mentioned that "People who are poorly trained in these activities run a much higher risk of injury even if provided with the latest and best equipment.", which implies that training is more important.

C talks about preparation and not about education. Preparation could mean anything beyond education...So it is out of scope.

Any inputs?