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

Redeem

Need Explanation

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:06 pm

Need Explanation

by hemant.dunga » Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:25 am
The advanced technology of ski boots and bindings has brought a dramatic drop in the incidence of injuries that occur on the slopes of ski resorts: from 9 injuries per 1,000 skiers in 1950 to 3 in 1980. As a result, the remainder of ski-related injuries, which includes all injuries occurring on the premises of a ski resort but not on the slopes, rose from 10 percent of all ski-related injuries in 1950 to 25 percent in 1980. The incidence of these injuries, including accidents such as falling down steps, increases with the amount of alcohol consumed per skier.

17.Which one of the following conflicts with information in the passage?

(A) The number of ski injuries that occurred on the slopes was greater in 1980 than in 1950.

(B) A skier was less likely to be injured on the slopes in 1950 than in 1980.

(C) The reporting of ski injuries became more accurate between 1950 and 1980.

(D) The total number of skiers dropped between 1950 and 1980.

(E) Some ski-related injuries occurred in 1980 to people who were not skiing.

Source LSAT/Test 2 / Section II
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:34 pm

Is the answer <B>?

by anu_pandey20 » Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:44 am
Hi,
What's the answer for this? Is it <B>?
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:19 am

by shoh0ku » Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:44 am
IMO - A

The statement states that the "INCIDENCE" / NUMBER of injuries on ski resorts' slopes was greater in 1950 than in 1980 (9 injuries to 3 injuries).

A - provides a conflict by stating that the NUMBER of injuries on ski resorts' slopes was greater in 1980 than in 1950.

B is incorrect because it compares likelihood with "INCIDENCE" / NUMBER of injuries. The statement does not dicuss likelihood - it only provides statistics.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 8:01 am
Thanked: 4 times

by italian7745 » Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:45 am
The choice is between A and B. I will go with Choice B.

I think A is incorrect because we cannot compare the No. of Injuries the occured on slope in 1980 with 1950 because we do not know the no. of skiers.

Example

1) Let us consider that No. of Skires during the period remains constant as 1000 during this period.So , No. of Injuries in 1950> No. of Injuries in 1980.

2) If the No. of Skiers in 1950 were 1000 and in 1980 were 4000.No. of Injuires in 1950 < No. of injuries in 1980...

So this option has to be opted out. Options C , D and E are irrelevant and do not conflict the info. in the passage.

Option B does conflict since it is clearly mentioned that 9/1000 injuries occured in 1950 and 3/1000 occured in 1980 , a skier is less likely to be injured in 1980 than in 1950. Option B conflicts with this info.

Whats the OA ?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 8:01 am
Thanked: 4 times

by italian7745 » Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:46 am
Sorry reposted
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:780

by Spaceman Spiff » Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:07 am
I go with B too.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:41 pm
Thanked: 9 times
GMAT Score:770

by raghavsarathy » Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:07 pm
Both A and B seem to be contradicting the main statement. However A seems to be stronger.

IMO - A
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:55 pm
Thanked: 11 times
GMAT Score:740

by Domnu » Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:48 pm
The answer cannot be A: suppose that only 1000 people went skiing in 1950 but 10000 people went skiing in 1980. By the statistics given, in 1950, 9 people may have been injured, but in 1980, somewhere around 30 people may have been injured.

The answer is B.
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:11 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by ashton_s_83 » Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:33 pm
The answer is (A), here is the math...


In 1950, total non slope injuries were 10% of all injuries, so slope injuries were 90% (9/1000)... In 1980, total non slope injuries were 25% of all injuries, so slope injuries were 75% (3/1000)... after some math the total injuries in 1980 comes out to be less than that in 1950...
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:14 am
Thanked: 2 times

by Spring2009 » Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:42 pm
I agree with A.
They expect that the number of injuries drops between 1950 and 1980. However, if the number of ski injuries in 1980 is greater than that in 1950, this means 25% of ski injuries in 1980 is greater than 10% of ski injuries in 1950.
This contradicts the expectation.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:57 am
Thanked: 7 times
GMAT Score:720

by gmat_dest » Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:04 am
The advanced technology of ski boots and bindings has brought a dramatic drop in the incidence of injuries that occur on the slopes of ski resorts: from 9 injuries per 1,000 skiers in 1950 to 3 in 1980.17.Which one of the following conflicts with information in the passage?

(A) The number of ski injuries that occurred on the slopes was greater in 1980 than in 1950.

What if exactly 1000 skiers visited the resort in 1980, so 3 persons got injured(3/1000).

And 1000 skiers visited the resort in 1950, so only 9 persons got injured in 1950.

Then A is contradicted right.

I think the question is like CANNOT be TRUE type.

My choice is B, as it directly contradicts the passage.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:33 am

by kris77 » Sun May 15, 2016 3:10 pm
Option A looks good than other answers.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1