premise: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the league have become concerned with the number of flagrant fouls occurring during league games.

premise: the number of flagrant fouls was double the number from the season before

conclusion:League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls.

what shall be a premise which shall support the conclusion?

I think E , Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team.

IMO E

CONCLUSION: League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls.


Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls.

INCORRECT.LEAGUE OFFICIALS WANT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER AND NOT THE INTENSITY OF FOULS.



League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls.

INCORRECT. IT WILL NOT REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FOULS.

Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls.

INCORRECT. IRRELEVANT.

A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.

EVENT HAPPENING IN A SIMILAR LEAGUE NEED NOT BE TRUE FOR THE YOUTH HOCKEY LEAGUE. BUT YES THERE ARE SOME CHANCES AND HENCE THIS IS A CONTENDER FOR THE CORRECT ANSWER. SO THIS CAN BE THE ANSWER IF WE DIDN'T HAVE (E). I FEEL (E) IS BETTER THAN THIS ONE.

Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team.

CORRECT: SINCE THE PLAYERS ARE AWARE THAT THEY WILL NOT BE SELECTED FOR ALL STAR TEAM IF THERE IS A RECORD OF SUSPENSION. SO THEY WILL AVOID ANY FLAGRANT FOUL, THEMSELVES . HENCE THIS WILL DEFINITELY,LEAD TO REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF FLAGRANT FOUL.

Fnds, You are right.OA is E.

I selected B. Can anyone explain why B is wrong. If there will be no trained referees than how will this plan succeed?

Untrained trainees will select wrong players.Is it wrong?

ankurmit wrote:Fnds, You are right.OA is E.

I selected B. Can anyone explain why B is wrong. If there will be no trained referees than how will this plan succeed?

Untrained trainees will select wrong players.Is it wrong?

Even if the League officials are well trained to suspend players who commit fouls,

will it for sure reduce the number of players who commit fouls? NO , some might argue that it would increase the number of players who commit fouls.... B is not sound.

E is more solid, it gives a reason why players would reduce the number of fouls, "because of the fear" .

The argument has implemented a certain course of action to reduce the fouls , now we need to choose the option which provides an evidence that will plan wil be effective . Now we should ask whats the plan ? The plan is to reduce fouls by implementing suspension . So any evidence that tell us that players will be reluctant to get suspended will definately reduce fouls.

Option B is Irrelevat to our argument , we want the evidence that will prove tht plan wil be effective , we are not to doubt on refrees capability.

option E is the required evidence.


Thanks & Regards,
AIM GMAT