Plastic sleds

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Azerbaijan/Baku
Thanked: 2 times

by S0laris » Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:38 am
C - if there are much wider variety conditions where sleds applicable, then there are more chances to get hurt, thus sleds are not responsible for injures.
we are the champions !

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:27 pm
ok, i'm a bit late to this party, but:

the passage connects an increased NUMBER of injuries with a contention that the plastic sleds are MORE LIKELY to cause injuries (i.e., that the plastic sleds cause a higher RATE / FREQUENCY of injuries).

if you've done enough critical reasoning, then you should know that this sort of correction - between ABSOLUTE NUMBERS and RATES / PROPORTIONS - is seriously flawed, because it assumes that the underlying totals match.
for example, if more high school seniors graduate this year, that doesn't necessarily imply a higher graduation rate; instead, it could simply be the case that there are more seniors to start with, with the same graduation rate (or even a lower rate) than before.

--

to undermine the conclusion of this passage, we should find something that destroys the connection between absolute numbers and percentages. this can be done in one of two ways:
* we could have a statement showing that MORE KIDS are sledding than before.
* we could have a statement showing that kids are sledding MORE OFTEN than before.

i go with (c), because it verifies the latter of these two statements. none of the other four statements has anything to do with these links.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:05 am
Location: VA
Thanked: 1 times

Re: Plastic sleds

by dtwea » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:07 am
El Cucu wrote:In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?

A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.
B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.
C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.
D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled.
E. Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:05 am
Location: VA
Thanked: 1 times

by dtwea » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:11 am
S0laris wrote:C - if there are much wider variety conditions where sleds applicable, then there are more chances to get hurt, thus sleds are not responsible for injures.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:55 pm

by gmatad » Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:27 am
How is the OA B? isnt C the better choice?

Children may or may not have been using protective gear 10 years ago.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:58 am
Thanked: 3 times

by svishal1123 » Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:47 pm
Thats very good explanation Lunarpower !!

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2008 10:14 pm
Location: Bangalore
Thanked: 2 times
GMAT Score:390

weaken questions .. need to think abstract

by mharv » Wed Apr 15, 2009 3:53 am
Premise: plastic sleds are harder to steer and slow compared to wooden sleds

Conclusion: the number of children injured while sledding last winter was higher because of plastic sleds and not wooden sleds

A is irrelevant to the argument

B is correct :arrow: To weaken the argument, if the children wore no helmets it won't matter what type of sleds they are using

C strengthens the use of plastics sleds and if it can be used in a variety of conditions, then its better than wooden sleds, no mention of safer.

D is extreme and uses the word most - generalization

E weakens the wooden sled, but not the argument's conclusion which is that plastic sleds caused more injuries among children last year.
Regards,
Arvind

Legendary Member
Posts: 876
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 8:14 am
Thanked: 13 times

by ketkoag » Wed Apr 15, 2009 4:32 am
c could not be the answer according to me as it supports that by using plastic sled the number of accidents are increasing, hence it supports the conclusion.
First i selected D to be the answer but after some more analysis i feel that B is the best answer among all.

Also i want to confirm the meaning of the statement "most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited". please lemme know whether, apart from weakening the conclusion, is there any other meaning of the statement above.

Experts, please put your views in this regard.
Thanks

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:08 pm

by nonameee » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:52 am
I understand the reasons why other choices are wrong and why this choice undermines the premise that the number of children who slide is higher now due to the reason stated in (C).

I ruled out (C) because I thought that since plastic sleds can be used in a wider variety of snow conditions (e.g., in conditions with bad visibility).

What's wrong with that reasoning?

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:22 am
Location: Lahore, Pakistan
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by chufus » Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:09 am
See you have to realise that you are looking for reason other than the plastic sled to undermine the argument. Now that leaves us with two options. B and C. B says it is bacause they don't wear helmets etc. C says it is because of the wider variety of conditions that plastic sleds are exposed to that causes accidents. B is not a good candidate because the helmets not being present applies to both the wooden sled and the plastic one. Whereas the "condition" argument applies to plastic sleds only.

Hence I thought C was a clear winner

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:08 pm

by nonameee » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:30 am
chufus, I understand why (B) is wrong, and why all other answers are wrong. And yes, (C) does look like the best choice.

I ruled out (C) because I thought that since plastic sleds can be used in a wider variety of snow conditions (e.g., in conditions with bad visibility) which makes them more dangerous than wooden sleds.

Any thoughts?

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:51 am
nonameee wrote:I ruled out (C) because I thought that since plastic sleds can be used in a wider variety of snow conditions (e.g., in conditions with bad visibility) which makes them more dangerous than wooden sleds.
"wider variety of snow conditions" just means more different kinds/depths/versions of snow. there is no implication about whether these varieties of snow are more or less dangerous than the kind on which wooden sleds can be used.
your objection is invalid because (a) visibility is not a quality of snow, and, much more importantly, (b) you just made up the idea of "more dangerous conditions" at random. you can't just make up facts at random and then use them in an argument!
you are assuming (for no particular reason) that the additional varieties of snow are more dangerous; you could just as well assume that they are less dangerous.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:08 pm

by nonameee » Thu Jan 26, 2012 4:50 am
you can't just make up facts at random and then use them in an argument!
you are assuming (for no particular reason) that the additional varieties of snow are more dangerous; you could just as well assume that they are less dangerous.
Ron, could you please then explain how do you suppose to know whether ideas/reasoning/facts that you use in your thought process are random or arbitrary? You see, the reasons I ruled out (C) looked pretty much logical to me.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:22 pm
nonameee wrote:
you can't just make up facts at random and then use them in an argument!
you are assuming (for no particular reason) that the additional varieties of snow are more dangerous; you could just as well assume that they are less dangerous.
Ron, could you please then explain how do you suppose to know whether ideas/reasoning/facts that you use in your thought process are random or arbitrary? You see, the reasons I ruled out (C) looked pretty much logical to me.
first, make sure that you are working on a question type that requires you to make reasonable assumptions. (in practical terms, this basically means "any problem type except draw the conclusion". on conclusion problems, you basically aren't allowed to assume anything at all.)

then, basically, something is ok to assume if ...
1/ basically any random person on the street (except for the insane ones) would come up with that interpretation first;
and/or
2/ all other possible alternatives are farfetched or unreasonable.

for instance, check out CR #65 in the twelfth edition official guide. the first sentence in that passage basically says, "the pattern of destruction in this ruined city is exactly the pattern created when a city is destroyed by an earthquake."
the common sense interpretation of this statement is "the city WAS actually destroyed by an earthquake". note that this interpretation passes the two criteria above: (1) this is definitely the first thing that any reasonable person will think, and (2) it is unlikely, to say the least, that any other event would have produced the same pattern of destruction.

by contrast, in this example, "the other types of snow are more dangerous" doesn't pass either of the tests above; there is no reason to assume that the additional types of snow aren't equally dangerous or even less so.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:08 pm

by nonameee » Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:05 am
So Ron, in connection to what you've written, here's another question from the OG, to make sure that I understood you completely:
Sales of telephones have increased dramatically over the last year. In order to take advantage of this increase, Mammoth Industries (MI) plans to expand production of its own model of telephone, while continuing its already very extensive advertising of this product.

Which of the following, if true, provides most support for the view that Mammoth Industries cannot increase its sales of telephones by adopting the plan outlined above?

a) Although it sells all of the telephones that it produces, Mammoth Industries' share of all telephone sales has declined over the last year.
b) MI's average inventory of telephones awaiting shipment to retailers has declined slightly over the last year.
c) Advertising has made the brand name of MI's telephones widely known, but few consumers know that MI owns this brand.
d) MI's telephone is one of three brands of telephone that have together accounted for the bulk of the last year's increase in sales.
e) Despite a slight decline in the retail price, sale of MI's telephones have fallen in the last year
The correct answer is (E) though we have to assume here that the trend from the previous year will continue this year as well. Otherwise, if the trend discontinues, (E) will not weaken the action plan suggested in the argument.

Now, based on what you've written, I assume that (E) is correct here not because it's an assumption that every single person would agree with (at least me and a couple of other people on GMAT forum don't agree with it), but because it's the only viable answer.

Am I correct?


PS

I've asked this question here as well, but so far no one has given a satisfying answer:

https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/sal ... t4582.html