Critical Reasoning

Over the past 20 years, skiing has become a relatively safe sport due to improvement in ski equipment. There has been a 50 percent drop in the number of ski injuries over the last 20 years. Clearly, however, there have not been decreases in the number of injuries in all categories, as statistical data readily show, for although broken legs and ankle injuries have decreased by an astounding 90 percent, knee injuries now represent 16 percent of all ski injuries, up significantly from the 11 percent of 20 years ago.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument does which one of the following?
(A) It fails to allow for there being ski injuries other than broken legs, ankle injuries, and knee injuries.
(B) It infers disparate effects from the same single cause.
(C) It ignores the possibility that the number of skiers has increased over the past 20 years.
(D) It assumes that an increase in the proportion of knee injuries rules out a decrease in the number of knee injuries.
(E) It proceeds as though there could be a greater decease in injuries in each category of injury than there is in injuries overall.


Oa is d.

I would have gone with C... I don't know why D is the correct choice.

Anyone?

A looks better than any other option

vaivish,

Is the 4th option written correctly .. pls check !!!

D.

Reasoning: The argument states that there has been a decrease in ski injuries; however, the number of knee injuries has increased. Just because the percentage of knee injuries increased does not mean that the total number of knee injuries increased. This is a percent/amount flaw.

For example: Assume that 20 years ago, there were 100 total injuries and 15 of those were knee related. That means that 15% of the injuries were knee related. Based on the information provided in the argument, the number of injuries has decreased by 50%. That means there are now only 50 total injuries. Let’s assume that the number of knee related injuries decreased to 10. That means that the knee related injuries is 20% ((10 injuries / 50 total injuries) *100). This is an example where the number of injuries increased and the percentage increased.
Ans. Choice D is correct because the argument's flaw is that it does not rule out that the number, the actual number, not the proportion, of knee related injuries has not decreased.

Hope this helps.

very good expln....

I would go with option D as the correct option