Critical Reasoning

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.

OA: (C)

Conclusion: The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous.

Evidence: the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

C is the only choice that weakens conclusion by providing an alternative .

gmat_dest wrote:Conclusion: The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous.

Evidence: the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

C is the only choice that weakens conclusion by providing an alternative .

How does a sled being able to be used in a wide variety of snow conditions weaken the argument of plastic sleds are more dangerous?

Because it increases the # of times people go sledding, instead of sledding 2x a year, with a plastic sled you can go sledding 10x a year. Increase number of instances sledding, increase number of accidents. Doesnt matter how dangerous the sled is.

This is a good one. I missed it completely and eliminated C.
After reading the explanation it makes sense now.
Thanks.

What is wrong with B?
According to tom4lax, in C, the number of times people use sledding will increase the number of accidents. This may be true but not guarrantee all the time.
In B, "Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding".
Since children do not were gear, this is also even if children use wooden sleds.
So the reason for increased accidents was that children did not wear gear, not because they used plastic sleds.

Is there an official explanation? I would have gone with B because it clearly touches on the safety issue. The reasoning is that the sleds themselves are not dangerous, it is the fact that kids don't wer protective gear that has resulted (alternate cause) in more injuries last winter than it was 10 years ago

C. The fact thta that sleds can be used in a wider variety of conditions, to me, does not weaken the conclusion by providing an alternate cause. It doesn't outright touch upon safety. You have to assume that the kids would engage in sledding during hazardous snowy conditions for this to weaken the evidence cited.

ARGHHH Can one of the experts weigh in?

its very important to note the Question Stem. I am quoting the stem again.

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

So we have to Undermine the evidence and not the conclusion.

Clearly, there are 2 contenders viz. B and C

B.Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.

If you look closely, this one weakens the conclusion. This says, the plastic gear was not at all responsible for the increase in injuries. But we are NOT suppose to weaken the conclusion.

C.Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.

Even if plastic gears are safe or not,when they are used more number of times, they are sure to have increased injury.So this weakens the EVIDENCE!


So C is the answer
Hope this Helps

I got it now, that's my fault when I usually do not look at the question carefully. I just saw "undermine" then went directly to the answer choice.
Thanks a ton.

gmat740 wrote:its very important to note the Question Stem. I am quoting the stem again.

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

So we have to Undermine the evidence and not the conclusion.

Clearly, there are 2 contenders viz. B and C

B.Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.

If you look closely, this one weakens the conclusion. This says, the plastic gear was not at all responsible for the increase in injuries. But we are NOT suppose to weaken the conclusion.

C.Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.

Even if plastic gears are safe or not,when they are used more number of times, they are sure to have increased injury.So this weakens the EVIDENCE!


So C is the answer
Hope this Helps

Hello all,

What is mostly confusing in this CR question is the "10 years ago" when the plastic sleds started to become popular, and in the final statement of the author he compares last year with ten years ago.... AS IF he is comparing two periods where plastic seds were popular i.e. no comparison with wooden sleds any more.
Thanks