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

Redeem

CR- damaging the argument

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:06 am

CR- damaging the argument

by bharti.2010 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:31 am
Source: Master the GMAT 2012- Practice test 1-diagnostic Q18

Last year, 2 drowning occurred at Lake, so this year the owner added 1 more lifeguard. No drowning occurred this year. However, the new lifeguard was on leave nearly half of the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard wa not needed after all.
Which of the following, if true, wouldbe most damaging to the argument?

A This year, owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
B Drowning is not the owners only safety concern.
C The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.
D Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguard.
E The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.

I am totally confused which one to choose. No option seems a correct answer to me. Please help me with this question.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:05 pm
Thanked: 26 times
Followed by:4 members

by chieftang » Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:46 am
bharti.2010 wrote:Source: Master the GMAT 2012- Practice test 1-diagnostic Q18

Last year, 2 drowning occurred at Lake, so this year the owner added 1 more lifeguard. No drowning occurred this year. However, the new lifeguard was on leave nearly half of the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard wa not needed after all.
Which of the following, if true, wouldbe most damaging to the argument?

A This year, owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
B Drowning is not the owners only safety concern.
C The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.
D Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguard.
E The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.

I am totally confused which one to choose. No option seems a correct answer to me. Please help me with this question.
This argument is that an additional lifeguard wasn't needed. Option D seems to be the only one that damages that argument. It's the best choice I can find among the five given.

A bolsters the argument with the possibility that a sign alone helped reduce drownings.
B is irrelevant.
C tells us that population didn't decrease (which could explain fewer drownings)
D tells us that lifeguards do correlate to greater safety
E is irrelevant.
Last edited by chieftang on Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:02 pm
Thanked: 62 times
Followed by:6 members

by user123321 » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:22 pm
IMO D

statement says...since no drowning this year, no life guard needed.
But option D says lake activities will be safer in presence of life guard & this weakens the conclusion in my opinion

I am not so sure about this one, since I chose it on the basis of POE.
thanks,
user123321
Just started my preparation :D
Want to do it right the first time.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:06 am

by bharti.2010 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:13 am
D is a wrong answer.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:05 pm
Thanked: 26 times
Followed by:4 members

by chieftang » Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:49 am
bharti.2010 wrote:D is a wrong answer.
Would you care to give the correct answer, and an explanation? And one question for you: Has this question and answer set been translated from another language by any chance? The question itself is rife with grammar errors. And perhaps something is getting lost in translation here.

I'm also starting to suspect that some of these question types coming from non-GMAC sources are not so worthwhile.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:09 pm
Thanked: 11 times

by kanwar86 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:58 am
IMO, D is the correct answer.
Regards

Kanwar

"In case my post helped, do care to thank. Happy learning :)"
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:06 am

by bharti.2010 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:49 am
OA: C
Explanation:-
Conclusion- New lifeguard was not a factor in the declining of death from last year to this year.
C rules out one other possible explantion for the decline in the number of drownings, in turn rendering it more likely that the addintional lifeguard did contribute to the decline.

Chieftang@ this question is little bit modified to make it short but the meaning is same as given in the book.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:05 pm
Thanked: 26 times
Followed by:4 members

by chieftang » Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:05 pm
bharti.2010 wrote:OA: C
Explanation:-
Conclusion- New lifeguard was not a factor in the declining of death from last year to this year.
C rules out one other possible explantion for the decline in the number of drownings, in turn rendering it more likely that the addintional lifeguard did contribute to the decline.

Chieftang@ this question is little bit modified to make it short but the meaning is same as given in the book.
Fair enough. From which book did this question come? I don't really care for the supposed OA. D is more direct and IMO more damaging than C.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:06 am

by bharti.2010 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:53 pm
If you don't really care about the OA, then why do you need its source.
If you really care for OA then look on the top of the argument.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:05 pm
Thanked: 26 times
Followed by:4 members

by chieftang » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:08 pm
bharti.2010 wrote:If you don't really care about the OA,
I said "care for", not "care about".
then why do you need its source.
So I can avoid using it as a study guide.
If you really care for OA then look on the top of the argument.
Thanks. I overlooked that.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:02 pm
Thanked: 62 times
Followed by:6 members

by user123321 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:08 pm
bharti.2010 wrote:If you don't really care about the OA, then why do you need its source.
If you really care for OA then look on the top of the argument.
I think I understood why C is correct. This year and last year the crowd was same, but last year drowning happened & this year drowning did not happen, this means the additional swimmer was indeed useful. This weakens the argument which says additional(this word I oversaw first time) swimmer is not required.

nice question.HTH.

user123321
Just started my preparation :D
Want to do it right the first time.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:06 am

by bharti.2010 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 7:29 am
Thanks. I got your point. But on what basis you will eliminate D?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:02 pm
Thanked: 62 times
Followed by:6 members

by user123321 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:43 am
bharti.2010 wrote:Thanks. I got your point. But on what basis you will eliminate D?
D just says lake activities are safer in the presence of life guard. It does nothing to the argument because we still have lifeguards when new life guard is not taken this year. As I said earlier, the word "additional" has good importance here.

user123321
Just started my preparation :D
Want to do it right the first time.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:07 am
Thanked: 19 times
Followed by:3 members

by GmatVerbal » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:14 pm
Argument

Last year, without the presence of life guard no drowing occured.

This year no drowing with no lifegaurd for part of the year => life guard not required(conclusion).

What is really implied in the argument ==> Life guard is not useful during the period he is present;

what would be most damaging the argument i.e. any statement proving that the life guard saved people from some drowings.

choice(c): The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year. => what does it say?? swimmers
did the life guard job of protecting people? then why did drownings occured last year?
drowings must have occured during non-summer period. This year drowings did not occur because of the presence of life guard during the non-summer period. So life guard is required during non-summer period.

Choice (C) does answer the question.

Choice(D): Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguard. ==> This is simply reiterating the opposite point of view. It doesn't answer the puzzle of why no drowings this year without the presence of life guard during the summer period.







bharti.2010 wrote:Source: Master the GMAT 2012- Practice test 1-diagnostic Q18

Last year, 2 drowning occurred at Lake, so this year the owner added 1 more lifeguard. No drowning occurred this year. However, the new lifeguard was on leave nearly half of the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard wa not needed after all.
Which of the following, if true, wouldbe most damaging to the argument?

A This year, owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
B Drowning is not the owners only safety concern.
C The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.
D Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguard.
E The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.

I am totally confused which one to choose. No option seems a correct answer to me. Please help me with this question.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 10:07 am
Thanked: 19 times
Followed by:3 members

by GmatVerbal » Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:13 pm
If I think more about it --> the most direct way of weaking the argument is to attack the argument on its assumptions/basis.

Lets personalize the argument with a conversation:

A: Last year there were two drownings in the Lake, so I hired a life guard this year and so no drowings this year.

B: You should not have hired the life guard. Anyway, Life guard is not present half of the summer. So, He is really not required.

A: Yea,But,summer life guard is not required - lake is full of swimmers.

What did (A) do? He refuted by attacking the basis of B's argument. B's argument is based on the period life guard is not present. So, A should concentrate on answering period of discrepancy.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply