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

Redeem

CR

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:29 am
Thanked: 4 times

CR

by danjuma » Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:38 am
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.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times
Followed by:24 members

by shovan85 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 11:49 am
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.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:3 members

by diebeatsthegmat » Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:38 pm
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
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 10:16 pm

by psychomath » Fri Oct 08, 2010 7:26 am
I will go with A...CLearly sates what we require!!
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:3 members

by diebeatsthegmat » Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:26 pm
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????
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:20 pm
Thanked: 74 times
Followed by:4 members

by uwhusky » Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:44 pm
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.
Yep.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:21 am
Thanked: 10 times

by saurabhmahajan » Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:03 am
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.
Thanks and regards,
Saurabh Mahajan

I can understand you not winning,but i will not forgive you for not trying.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:33 am

by nisha.menon294 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:10 am
i think A . OA pls
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 268
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:32 am
Thanked: 17 times

by this_time_i_will » Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:18 am
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.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:27 pm

by Dangerous Dude » Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:14 am
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...
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:23 am
Thanked: 6 times

by rooster » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:33 pm
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?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:20 pm
Thanked: 74 times
Followed by:4 members

by uwhusky » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:00 pm
Assumption is an unstated premise, and thus restating a premise can't quality as an assumption.

A is not correct.
Yep.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:5 members

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:24 pm
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
A SMALL TOWN GUY
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 8:15 am
Location: 127.0.0.1
Thanked: 15 times

by gmatrix » Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:49 pm
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.
Life is all about ass; you're either covering it, laughing it off, kicking it, kissing it, busting it, trying to get a piece of it, or behaving like one.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:03 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by vishalj » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:09 pm
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".
Top
Post new topic Post Reply