Kaplan CR problem

This topic has expert replies
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: 21 Jun 2011

Kaplan CR problem

by moindanawala » Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:08 am
Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A) Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players

B) Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances

C) Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks

D) Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues

E) Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 502
Joined: 03 Jun 2008
Thanked: 99 times
Followed by:21 members

by vk_vinayak » Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:33 am
moindanawala wrote:Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A) Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players

B) Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances

C) Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks

D) Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues

E) Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries
Looks A to me. Argument says that wearing helmets made the players 20% less likely to get injured. Option A, introducing alternate cause, says that those players were very cautious to begin with.
- VK

I will (Learn. Recognize. Apply)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 462
Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:4 members

by confuse mind » Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:40 am
moindanawala wrote:Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A) Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players

B) Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances

C) Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks

D) Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues

E) Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries
I would go with C.

A, in my opinion, strengthens the conclusion that 'helmets are critical'
C weakens by saying that they cannot help in all cases, especially when they are made of composites.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Thanked: 1 times

by ssidda01 » Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:54 am
IMO D.

Argument states that helmets are critical to prevent injuries. People who have had helmets in the past have 20% less injuries.

D states that people have worn helmets in the past and still have succumb to head injuries.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 28
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Thanked: 2 times

by SmartAssJun » Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:59 pm
moindanawala wrote:Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A) Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players

B) Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances

C) Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks

D) Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues

E) Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries
Totally A to me.
Choice A provide a perfect addition explanation of why hocky players with helmets on suffer less injuries during the games.
Other choices are way less relevant and C even strngthens the point.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 28
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Thanked: 2 times

by SmartAssJun » Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:59 pm
moindanawala wrote:Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A) Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players

B) Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances

C) Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks

D) Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues

E) Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries
Totally A to me.
Choice A provides a perfect addition explanation of why hocky players with helmets on suffer less injuries during the games.
Other choices are way less relevant and C even strngthens the point.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 341
Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:720

by ice_rush » Sat Sep 22, 2012 9:01 am
A should be correct. What's the OA?

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 14
Joined: 12 Jan 2011
Followed by:2 members

by ananthrajavadhuta » Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:10 pm

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: 10 Aug 2008

by kheba » Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:57 am
Why not C ?? Even if one is cautious there's nothing stopping the ball from hitting the helmet. The conclusion is helmets are critical in preventing head injuries , but what if the helmets themselves are not good enough?