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

Redeem

Two for the price of one!!!

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:07 pm

Two for the price of one!!!

by success1111 » Tue May 05, 2009 1:08 am
The advanced technology of ski boots and bindings has brought a dramatic drop in the incidence of injuries that occur on the slopes of ski resorts: from 9 injuries per 1,000 skiers in 1950 to 3 in 1980. As a result, the remainder of ski-related injuries, which includes all injuries occurring on the premises of a ski resort but not on the slopes, rose from 10 percent of all ski-related injuries in 1950 to 25 percent in 1980. The incidence of these injuries, including accidents such as falling down steps, increases with the amount of alcohol consumed per skier.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?

(A) As the number of ski injuries that occur on the slopes decreases, the number of injuries that occur on the premises of ski resorts increases.

(B) The amount of alcohol consumed per skier increased between 1950 and 1980.

(C) The technology of ski boots and bindings affects the incidence of each type of ski-related injury.

(D) If the technology of ski boots and bindings continues to advance, the incidence of ski-related injuries will continue to decline.

(E) Injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts made up a smaller percentage of ski-related injuries in 1980 than in 1950.


Which one of the following conflicts with information in the passage?

(A) The number of ski injuries that occurred on the slopes was greater in 1980 than in 1950.

(B) A skier was less likely to be injured on the slopes in 1950 than in 1980.

(C) The reporting of ski injuries became more accurate between 1950 and 1980.

(D) The total number of skiers dropped between 1950 and 1980.

(E) Some ski-related injuries occurred in 1980 to people who were not skiing.
Trust but verify.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:30 pm

Re: Two for the price of one!!!

by effective_factor » Tue May 05, 2009 4:38 am
success1111 wrote:The advanced technology of ski boots and bindings has brought a dramatic drop in the incidence of injuries that occur on the slopes of ski resorts: from 9 injuries per 1,000 skiers in 1950 to 3 in 1980. As a result, the remainder of ski-related injuries, which includes all injuries occurring on the premises of a ski resort but not on the slopes, rose from 10 percent of all ski-related injuries in 1950 to 25 percent in 1980. The incidence of these injuries, including accidents such as falling down steps, increases with the amount of alcohol consumed per skier.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?

(A) As the number of ski injuries that occur on the slopes decreases, the number of injuries that occur on the premises of ski resorts increases.

(B) The amount of alcohol consumed per skier increased between 1950 and 1980.

(C) The technology of ski boots and bindings affects the incidence of each type of ski-related injury.

(D) If the technology of ski boots and bindings continues to advance, the incidence of ski-related injuries will continue to decline.

(E) Injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts made up a smaller percentage of ski-related injuries in 1980 than in 1950.


Which one of the following conflicts with information in the passage?

(A) The number of ski injuries that occurred on the slopes was greater in 1980 than in 1950.

(B) A skier was less likely to be injured on the slopes in 1950 than in 1980.

(C) The reporting of ski injuries became more accurate between 1950 and 1980.

(D) The total number of skiers dropped between 1950 and 1980.

(E) Some ski-related injuries occurred in 1980 to people who were not skiing.
for the first one i narrowed down to B and E

A tries to point out a causal relationship between the increase in decrease with is not stated in the argument

C is not stated

D is out of scope and cannot be inferred

B cannot be inferred no such argument is established

IMO E

for 2nd Q

B is the suitable answer
argument states that the

' from 9 injuries per 1,000 skiers in 1950 to 3 in 1980'

B contradicts that
Top
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:50 am
Thanked: 1 times

by yashanth.ponnanna » Tue May 05, 2009 7:18 am
A is the answer for the first question as well as for 2nd question!!!
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:14 am
Thanked: 13 times

by ketkoag » Tue May 05, 2009 10:12 am
IMO B and A respectively
B for 1st and A for second.

OA??
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:48 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:740

by 2010gmat » Tue May 05, 2009 10:54 am
for first ques E
for 2nd B
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:07 pm

by success1111 » Tue May 05, 2009 8:03 pm
2010gmat wrote:for first ques E
for 2nd B
These are LSAT questions and i copied verbatim the explanation below for the benefit of these who wrestle with inference questions.Because if you dont understand inferene question well,you are likely to have difficulty in RC.
Good luck.
(E)
We’re told that, from 1950 to 1980, the percentage of all ski-related injuries at ski resorts that did not occur on the slopes increased from 10% to 25%. That must mean that the percentage of ski-related injuries at ski resorts that did occur on the slopes must have decreased over that same period. Think about it this way: there are only two possible alternatives for a skit related injury: either it occurs on the slopes or it does not occur on the slopes. So if the share of ski-related injuries represented by one type of injury goes up, the share represented by the other type MUST go down. That’s choice (E).

(A) We have no information about the number of the different types of ski-related injuries occurring, only about the percentage of total injuries represented by the two different types of injuries. Since we don’t know how or whether the total number of injuries changed, we can’t infer (A).

(B) We can infer nothing about the amount of alcohol consumed. It’s true that increased alcohol consumption causes an increase in injuries off the slopes, but we don’t know that those injuries have increased numerically, nor do we know that alcohol consumption is the only thing that could bring about an increase.
(C) Although the stimulus says improved ski boots and bindings have decreased the incidence of injuries on the slopes, it never implies that they have any effect on off-slope injuries.
(D) is unwarranted for two reasons: first, the fact that better boots and bindings have reduced the incidence of on-slope injuries in the past is no guarantee that they will do so in the future and, second, (D) speaks of “ski-related injuries” in general, and we have no
reason to believe that boots and bindings have any effect on the incidence of off-slope injuries.

• When you first read this stimulus, you may have been tempted to try to work with the numbers. Don’t do any more work than you have to; this is not a math test. Rather than trying to pre-phrase an inference on a complex mathematical stimulus like this, go to the choices; use them to tell you what kind of inference you want.
• It is not uncommon on a large stimulus like this for the correct answer to be a “small” inference, based on one statement, rather than a “big” inference, linking all the statements together.
• Remember the “numbers vs. percentages” flaw? It is discussed as one of the logical flaws in Unit 3. Sometimes, the testmakers will throw this form of erroneous reasoning into a stimulus and ask you to identify the flaw. Here, there’s no flaw in the stimulus’ reasoning per se, but choice (A) is wrong on account of substituting numbers for the passage’s percentages. Thus, understanding the difference between raw numbers and percentages can lead you right to the correct choice, or in other cases, help you to narrow the choices down.

SECOND QUESTION

(B)
We’re told that the incidence of on-slope injuries decreased from 9 injuries per 1000 skiers in 1950, to 3 injuries per 1000 skiers in 1980. That means a skier was much less likely to suffer an on-slope injury in 1980 than in 1950. Clearly, (B) is in direct contradiction with this.
(A) Although we know the “incidence” or rate of injuries on the slopes definitely decreased over this period, we don’t know anything about the actual number of injuries. If there were many more skiers on the slopes in 1980 (at least three times as many), then it’s quite possible that answer choice (A) is correct and on-slope injuries did go up.

(C) The stimulus says absolutely nothing about the reporting of injuries, so it’s not contradicted by (C).
(D) The stimulus provides us with absolutely no grounds for concluding anything about the actual number of skiers; we’re only told about the number of injuries per 1000 skiers, without being told the necessary information: how many thousand skiers there actually were. So answer choice (D) may or may not be true; it doesn’t contradict any information
we’re given.

(E) Since we’re told that 25% of all ski related injuries occurred off the slopes, and that those injuries include things like “falling down steps,” (E) is actually a safe inference based on the stimulus.
Trust but verify.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:14 am
Thanked: 13 times

by ketkoag » Tue May 05, 2009 10:44 pm
cramya, i would like to read ur explanation.
please explain..
thanks..
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:14 am

by Brad.C » Sun May 15, 2016 1:50 pm
for the 1st question B for the 2nd E
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:03 am

by nicolette » Sun May 15, 2016 1:57 pm
I would choose B. But i am not sure of my answer
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1