During the 1980s and 1990s,

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

During the 1980s and 1990s,

by kvcpk » Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:42 am
During the 1980s and 1990s, the annual number of people who visited the Sordellian Mountains increased continually, and many new ski resorts were built. Over the same period, however, the number of visitors to ski resorts who were caught in avalanches decreased, even though there was no reduction in the annual number of avalanches in the Sordellian Mountains.

Which of the following, if true in the Sordellian Mountains during the 1980s and 1990s, most helps to explain the decrease?

(A) Avalanches were most likely to happen when a large new snowfall covered an older layer of snow.
(B) Avalanches destroyed at least some buildings in the Sordellian Mountains in every year.
(C) People planning new ski slopes and other resort facilities used increasingly accurate information about which locations are likely to be in the path of avalanches.
(D) The average length of stay for people visiting the Sordellian Mountains increased slightly.
(E) Construction of new ski resorts often led to the clearing of wooded areas that had helped to prevent avalanches.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:12 am
Thanked: 87 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:730

by hardik.jadeja » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:29 am
Tell us what doubt you have with this question. I find OG explanation pretty decent.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=sQW_ ... &q&f=false

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:37 am
I couldnt get why Option E is wrong. Clearing of wooded areas helped prevent avalanches. This seems to be reasonable..

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:12 am
Thanked: 87 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:730

by hardik.jadeja » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:41 am
kvcpk wrote:I couldnt get why Option E is wrong. Clearing of wooded areas helped prevent avalanches. This seems to be reasonable..
Option E is wrong because of this sentence from the passage "there was no reduction in the annual number of avalanches in the Sordellian Mountains."

Clearing of wooded areas did not help prevent avalanches. In fact it cleared wooded areas that had helped to prevent avalanches in past. So the number of avalanches in the Sordellian Mountains must have gone up, resulting in even more injuries to the tourists.

Hope that helps..

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:41 pm
Location: Chennai
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:660

by vivek1110 » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:55 am
IMO C.

Argument: Number of people visiting increased, so did the no of ski resorts. The number of avalanches remained the same! But the number of people caught in avalanches dropped!

We're asked to explain the discrepancy!

A: The likeliness of the occurrence of an avalanche is irrelevant!
B: Number of building destroyed, also irrelevant!
C: If the ski resorts were strategically built, it would explain the discrepancy!
D: Length of the day? Not even close to making sense.
E: Irrelevant!
Is caught between a rock and a hard place!

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:57 am
There are two entities here..
Ski resorts and Sordellian Mountains.

The phrase: "the number of visitors to ski resorts who were caught in avalanches decreased" suggests that the number of vistors who were caught in avalanches when visisting the ski resorts decreased. E explains this by giving reason of clearing wooded areas.

The question is asking for "most helps to explain the decrease?". There is decrease mentioned only about the avalanches associated with Ski Resorts visitors and not Sordellian Mountains visitors. This is the main reason I chose E.

Option C says "People planning new ski slopes and other resort facilities used increasingly accurate information about which locations are likely to be in the path of avalanches." This option is OOS for me as it uses "new ski slopes and other resort facilities ". All that we are warae of as per the passage is "new ski resorts" and not "new ski slopes ". People took increasingly accurate information about locations - So What?? How does it prevent avalanches if there is no path that is proper.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:12 am
Thanked: 87 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:730

by hardik.jadeja » Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:16 am
kvcpk wrote:There are two entities here..
Ski resorts and Sordellian Mountains.

The phrase: "the number of visitors to ski resorts who were caught in avalanches decreased" suggests that the number of vistors who were caught in avalanches when visisting the ski resorts decreased. E explains this by giving reason of clearing wooded areas.
Now lets go back to option E.

(E) Construction of new ski resorts often led to the clearing of wooded areas that had helped to prevent avalanches.

Since those wooded areas are no more there to prevent the avalanches, the number of avalanches must have gone up. This should result in even more number of people getting caught in avalanches.
kvcpk wrote: Option C says "People planning new ski slopes and other resort facilities used increasingly accurate information about which locations are likely to be in the path of avalanches." This option is OOS for me as it uses "new ski slopes and other resort facilities ". All that we are warae of as per the passage is "new ski resorts" and not "new ski slopes ".
Don't be so rigid with words. People usually get caught in avalanches when they are doing some outdoor activities. People come to ski resorts for skiing(which happens on ski slopes) and other resort facilities and when they are busy doing that, they get caught in avalanches. So if the new ski resorts designed their resorts in such manner that their ski slopes and areas for other resort facilities do not come in the path of avalanche, then obviously the number people getting caught in avalanches is going to come down.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:25 am
hardik.jadeja wrote: Now lets go back to option E.

(E) Construction of new ski resorts often led to the clearing of wooded areas that had helped to prevent avalanches.

Since those wooded areas are no more there to prevent the avalanches, the number of avalanches must have gone up. This should result in even more number of people getting caught in avalanches.
I do not understand why number of people getting caught in avalanches will go up if wooded areas are cleared to prevent the avalanches.[/quote]

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:31 am
Now I think I am getting what you are trying to say..
clearing of wooded areas that had helped to prevent avalanches
I took this in positive sense. Which means, Before clearing of wooded areas, there were avalanches and that clearing wooded areas has prevented them.

But others looked at it negatively - which means - Before clearing of wooded areas, there were no avalanches because wooded areas prevented them. But after clearing them avalanches increased.

Am I right this time? But if that is the case, How am I to interpret it?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:12 am
Thanked: 87 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:730

by hardik.jadeja » Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:40 am
kvcpk wrote:Now I think I am getting what you are trying to say..

I took this in positive sense. Which means, Before clearing of wooded areas, there were avalanches and that clearing wooded areas has prevented them.

But others looked at it negatively - which means - Before clearing of wooded areas, there were no avalanches because wooded areas prevented them. But after clearing them avalanches increased.

Am I right this time? But if that is the case, How am I to interpret it?
Yes, you are right.

I knew you were reading option E incorrectly. That's the reason why I highlighted the last part of option E in my previous reply.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:42 am
But how do we know which way is the right way to read it?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:12 am
Thanked: 87 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:730

by hardik.jadeja » Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:43 am
kvcpk wrote:But how do we know which way is the right way to read it?
There is only one meaning of option E. I don't see any ambiguity with E.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:56 am
I think I will need to use my SC knowledge here.

There are 2 interpretations that can be made:
1. Clearing of wooded areas helped to prevent avalanches
2. Wooded areas helped to prevent avalanches

"clearing of wooded areas that had helped to prevent avalanches."

what does "that" refer to in the above sentence?

"that" refers to "clearing of wooded areas" or "wooded areas"?

If it referes to "wooded areas", then it will match with OG answer. Else, it would contradict OG answer.

As per learning from SC, "that" without a comma preceds the immediately preceding noun. So it should modify "wooded areas".

Let me know if my Interpretation is right.. Thank you!!

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:12 am
Thanked: 87 times
Followed by:5 members
GMAT Score:730

by hardik.jadeja » Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:15 am
Discussing SC concepts in CR forum.. hmmm... Interesting..!!!!!

As you know "that had helped to prevent avalanches" is a modifier. It is modifying wooded areas here, not the whole phrase "clearing of wooded areas".

We use relative pronoun that when we are referring to a subgroup or a class of things.

A cannon that shoots dead chickens at airplanes has proved helpful to the army.

There are lot of different types of cannons. But since we are talking about a particular subgroup/class of cannons(cannons having capability of shooting dead chickens), the usage of that is appropriate here.

"clearing of wooded areas" doesn't have any subgroup or class. It has to be wooded area. The mountain forest might be having lot of wooded areas but maybe not all of them are preventing avalanches. So we are talking about only those wooded area that are able to prevent avalanches.

Hope that makes sense..

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:41 am
hardik.jadeja wrote:Discussing SC concepts in CR forum.. hmmm... Interesting..!!!!!

As you know "that had helped to prevent avalanches" is a modifier. It is modifying wooded areas here, not the whole phrase "clearing of wooded areas".

We use relative pronoun that when we are referring to a subgroup or a class of things.

A cannon that shoots dead chickens at airplanes has proved helpful to the army.

There are lot of different types of cannons. But since we are talking about a particular subgroup/class of cannons(cannons having capability of shooting dead chickens), the usage of that is appropriate here.

"clearing of wooded areas" doesn't have any subgroup or class. It has to be wooded area. The mountain forest might be having lot of wooded areas but maybe not all of them are preventing avalanches. So we are talking about only those wooded area that are able to prevent avalanches.

Hope that makes sense..
Yeah.. I was thinking the same.. Thanks for confirming.. But a simple misread led to lot of confusion... I hope I dont repeat this.. :)