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

Redeem

Using armored vehicles

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:57 am
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:1 members

Using armored vehicles

by gmat25 » Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:11 pm
Using armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines entails an unavoidable risk of injury or fatality, but disarming and removing land mines manually currently entails an even greater such risk to those who remove land mines per mine removed. Therefore, in order to reduce the risk of injury or fatality without decelerating the effort to remove buried land mines, we must increase the use of armored vehicles and disarm fewer land mines by hand.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

A) Manual mine disarmers can be quickly trained in methods that significantly decrease their risk of injury or fatality.

B) Injuries caused by manual disarmament tend to be far more serious than injuries caused by armored vehicle detonations.

C) The delivery of armored vehicles with which to detonate buried land mines can be organized easily by military field operatives.

D) Land mines detonated by armored vehicles destabilize the land surrounding the mine, while land mines that are successfully disarmed manually cause no such damage.

E) Hiring and training those who remove mines by hand is far less costly than is importing heavy armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines.

OA given is Op A, however, i believe from Op A it is not clear that, decrease in risk using had will be lesser than using vehicle. So how this Op actually weakening the argument??????
Princeton Review CAT - 710(Q-51, V-37) --> silly mistakes screwed up my VERBAL
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:22 pm
Thanked: 112 times
Followed by:13 members

by smackmartine » Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:29 pm
IMO A

This is a cause - effect argument
eg.(X--->Y )

To weaken cause and effect scenario the answer would say Y--->X or Z--->Y or X and Y are correlated.

[spoiler]A)[/spoiler] says Z-->Y (Z is alternative explanation)

i.e the successful detonation without much risk can also be achieved even without armored vehicles by simply training people on methods that significantly decrease their risk of injury or fatality.

If this is true the conclusion is not strong enough to support that use of armored vehicles is must in order to reduce the risk of injury or fatality .

B) Injuries caused by manual disarmament tend to be far more serious than injuries caused by armored vehicle detonations. (comparing the degree of seriousness would not weaken the conclusion)

C) The delivery of armored vehicles with which to detonate buried land mines can be organized easily by military field operatives. (this supporting the conclusion somehow)

D) Land mines detonated by armored vehicles destabilize the land surrounding the mine, while land mines that are successfully disarmed manually cause no such damage. (we are not talking about all disarming the land mines in general but only the successful ones which are not the true representatives of all land mines disarmament)

E) Hiring and training those who remove mines by hand is far less costly than is importing heavy armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines. (cost out of scope)
Smack is Back ...
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button :)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 189
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:57 am
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:1 members

by gmat25 » Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:57 pm
Hi, i agree with you but don't u think the extent to which the risk be reduced is necessary to know??? What if the risk using hand be reduced but still not to the extent to which risk reduced using vehicle. Let say using vehicle, the risk is 1 person get hurt out of 100 and even after training as Op A suggests still 50 people are getting hurt using hand out of 100 (assume 90 people are getting hurt out of 100 without training for hand) so u see there is a significant reduction in risk using hand after training but still if u compare with the risk involved in using vehicle then still its not up to the mark. Or u are assuming that this word SIGNIFICANT means risk using had is comparable to risk using vehicle????
Princeton Review CAT - 710(Q-51, V-37) --> silly mistakes screwed up my VERBAL
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:22 pm
Thanked: 112 times
Followed by:13 members

by smackmartine » Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:38 am
First of all, GMAT follows a certain paradigm for CR question including Cause-and-Effect questions. There are many things you can consider in real world and still make a conclusion weak. However, that will give you satisfaction but not score. I do agree with you that someway or the other the degree of seriousness may weaken the argument ,but sticking around the scope of the argument will be more fruitful. All CR books describe only commonly tested reasoning so its all about what GMAT likes.

Moreover, GMAT does asks you Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

To your point , the passage does not give any evidence about # of people involved in detonating land mines. Rather it talks about people doing this job manually. Option A says if people are trained the Risk can be significantly reduced--> while the author says there is simply no way to achieve this other than using armored vehicles.(How many people involved in the operation?? Not mentioned and so we don't care!!!)
Smack is Back ...
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button :)
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Chennai, India
Thanked: 206 times
Followed by:43 members
GMAT Score:640

by GmatKiss » Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:19 am
IMO:A

B: Strengthens
C: Strnegthens
D: Poor reason to evaluate, damage to land mine is not a threat.
E: Cost is not a major threat than fatality.

Eliminating these A stands out!
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by BlindVision » Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:24 am
gmat25 wrote:Using armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines entails an unavoidable risk of injury or fatality, but disarming and removing land mines manually currently entails an even greater such risk to those who remove land mines per mine removed. Therefore, in order to reduce the risk of injury or fatality without decelerating the effort to remove buried land mines, we must increase the use of armored vehicles and disarm fewer land mines by hand.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

A) Manual mine disarmers can be quickly trained in methods that significantly decrease their risk of injury or fatality.

B) Injuries caused by manual disarmament tend to be far more serious than injuries caused by armored vehicle detonations.

C) The delivery of armored vehicles with which to detonate buried land mines can be organized easily by military field operatives.

D) Land mines detonated by armored vehicles destabilize the land surrounding the mine, while land mines that are successfully disarmed manually cause no such damage.

E) Hiring and training those who remove mines by hand is far less costly than is importing heavy armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines.

OA given is Op A, however, i believe from Op A it is not clear that, decrease in risk using had will be lesser than using vehicle. So how this Op actually weakening the argument??????
D
Life is a Test
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1