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.
What's the best approach to determine the answer? Can any experts help?
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter s
This topic has expert replies
-
BTGmoderatorAT
- Moderator
- Posts: 426
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:48 pm
- Followed by:1 members
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ErikaPrepScholar
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:03 am
- Thanked: 86 times
- Followed by:15 members
- GMAT Score:770
The argument is that plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds. The evidence cited is that there were more injuries last year than there were 10 years ago. Their conclusion is that since more children used plastic sleds last year than they did 10 years ago, the plastic sleds must be the cause all of those injuries. We want to demonstrate that this evidence (which is true!) does not support the argument at hand. In other words, we want to prove that there is another reason that children are getting injured more frequently now than they did 10 years ago that isn't that plastic sleds are more dangerous.
A. Whether or not a few children still use traditional wooden sleds, LESS children use them than 10 years ago. This means that the additional injuries are occurring, for the most part, on these plastic sleds. Eliminate.
B. If this statement said that fewer children wear protective gear now than they did 10 years ago, this would help explain why there are more injuries now outside of the change in sled material, which would weaken the evidence. But ... it doesn't say that. It just says that most children don't wear protective gear - this was probably also true 10 years ago. So this explains part of the reason children get hurt so much sledding, but it doesn't explain why they're getting hurt more now. Eliminate.
C. This tells us that plastic sleds can be used more frequently and in more places than wooden sleds can. So today, kids have more opportunities to sled than kids 10 years ago. This means that there are more opportunities for those kids to injure themselves today than there were 10 years ago. So plastic sleds themselves may not actually be more dangerous - they may just be used more frequently, yielding more injuries. This works
D. Like D, this doesn't tell us anything about now vs. 10 years ago - it just tells us about sledding in general. Now if it told us that there are more trees, rocks, or sleds now than ever, this would help explain the injuries ... but it doesn't. Eliminate.
E. This actually indicates that wooden sleds might be more dangerous than plastic sleds. This doesn't explain at all why there would be more injuries now than before - in fact, it makes it all the more confusing why these plastic sleds are causing more injuries. Eliminate.
A. Whether or not a few children still use traditional wooden sleds, LESS children use them than 10 years ago. This means that the additional injuries are occurring, for the most part, on these plastic sleds. Eliminate.
B. If this statement said that fewer children wear protective gear now than they did 10 years ago, this would help explain why there are more injuries now outside of the change in sled material, which would weaken the evidence. But ... it doesn't say that. It just says that most children don't wear protective gear - this was probably also true 10 years ago. So this explains part of the reason children get hurt so much sledding, but it doesn't explain why they're getting hurt more now. Eliminate.
C. This tells us that plastic sleds can be used more frequently and in more places than wooden sleds can. So today, kids have more opportunities to sled than kids 10 years ago. This means that there are more opportunities for those kids to injure themselves today than there were 10 years ago. So plastic sleds themselves may not actually be more dangerous - they may just be used more frequently, yielding more injuries. This works
D. Like D, this doesn't tell us anything about now vs. 10 years ago - it just tells us about sledding in general. Now if it told us that there are more trees, rocks, or sleds now than ever, this would help explain the injuries ... but it doesn't. Eliminate.
E. This actually indicates that wooden sleds might be more dangerous than plastic sleds. This doesn't explain at all why there would be more injuries now than before - in fact, it makes it all the more confusing why these plastic sleds are causing more injuries. Eliminate.
Erika John - Content Manager/Lead Instructor
https://gmat.prepscholar.com/gmat/s/
Get tutoring from me or another PrepScholar GMAT expert: https://gmat.prepscholar.com/gmat/s/tutoring/
Learn about our exclusive savings for BTG members (up to 25% off) and our 5 day free trial
Check out our PrepScholar GMAT YouTube channel, and read our expert guides on the PrepScholar GMAT blog
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
Summarize the argument..ardz24 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.
What's the best approach to determine the answer? Can any experts help?
PREMISE: Kids used to use wooden sleds
PREMISE: 10 years ago, plastic sleds came
PREMISE: plastic sleds are faster and harder to steer and slow
PREMISE: more kids injured last year than 10 years ago
CONCLUSION: plastic sleds are more dangerous
Now, check each answer choice and be sure to remind ourselves of the conclusion
(A) A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.
Does this weaken the conclusion that plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds?
No.
If anything, it strengthens the argument by suggesting that most children ride on plastic sleds these days.
ELIMINATE A
(B) Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.
Does this weaken the conclusion that plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds?
No.
IF it were the case that all/most children wore protective gear 10 years ago and, nowadays, they DON'T wear protective gear, then that would weaken the argument, since we could say that the lack of protective gear (and not the plastic sleds) caused the increase in injuries
However, since we aren't told that this is the case, we can ELIMINATE B
(C) Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.
Does this weaken the conclusion that plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds?
Yes!
This means that children with plastic sleds can do A LOT MORE sledding than they can do with wooden sleds.
So, it seems that the increase in sledding opportunities (and not the plastic sleds) is what caused the increase in injuries
KEEP C
(D) Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled.
Does this weaken the conclusion that plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds?
No.
If anything, it strengthens the argument, since the difficult-to-steer plastic sleds will likely run into a lot more trees etc.
ELIMINATE D
(E) Because the traditional wooden sleds can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.
Does this weaken the conclusion that plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds?
No.
ELIMINATE E
Answer: C
Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
