Second World War!

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
Thanked: 127 times
Followed by:14 members

Second World War!

by gmat_perfect » Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:03 am
During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis of those figures, it can be concluded that it was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay at home as a civilian.

Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?

(A) Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United States in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas

(B) Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths

(C) Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries

(D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths

(E) Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces.

OA: To be followed.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:38 am
D :
We should compare the death rate as a % number. Then for the overseas army, it may come much higher.

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 Apr 16, 2010 5:22 am
+1 for D

OA?
Is caught between a rock and a hard place!

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:08 pm

by ironstar37 » Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:33 am
IMO (D)

We need to resolve the poor assumption that is made. Deaths of citizens in US is comparable to deaths of armed forces overseas.

We can do this by expressing the figures as a percentage of the total population.

(D) achives this.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:54 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:3 members

by outreach » Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:01 am
conclusion i.e. homeland was no more safer than overseas combat front" is based on the fact that diff between no. of people who lost there life in homeland during war and no. of people who lost there life on overseas front is relatively less...
but while drawing this conclusion author failed to consider that the total no. of people in homeland are far more than total no. of people on overseas front.
D

gmat_perfect wrote:During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis of those figures, it can be concluded that it was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay at home as a civilian.

Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?

(A) Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United States in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas

(B) Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths

(C) Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries

(D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths

(E) Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces.

OA: To be followed.
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/