|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1395
Followers: 8
Kudos [?]:
86
[0], given: 10
|
Re: Please explain this one with fullest possible details thanks [#permalink]
 05 May 2011, 08:04
Clear A.
_________________
Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 17 Dec 2010
Posts: 12
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: Please explain this one with fullest possible details thanks [#permalink]
05 May 2011, 10:39
Good Explanation by bigoyal IMO A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: Never give up!
Affiliations: Beta Gamma Sigma, Omicron Delta Epsilon, Toastmasters Intl, HHonors
Joined: 04 Nov 2009
Posts: 225
Location: Raleigh-Durham NC
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
37
[0], given: 27
|
Re: Please explain this one with fullest possible details thanks [#permalink]
05 May 2011, 10:48
Logically, IMHO the best answer is A. B - Weakens the argument vs *other* forms of transport, just doesn't weaken the argument when simply talking about *air* transport, which is the subject at hand. C - That's well and good, but (getting back to topic) the danger to air travel might nonetheless still be getting more dangerous. D - Fine, but then by extension of the argument *all* forms of transport are getting more dangerous. E - This actually strengthens the argument (ie, if fewer people are flying *and* collisions are up). If there's any hole in my reasoning, I welcome comments. As I can benefit from it too.  (Thanks in advance!)
_________________
= = = = = = = = = =
If you liked my post, please consider a Kudos for me. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 02 Nov 2010
Posts: 46
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 23
|
Re: Please explain this one with fullest possible details thanks [#permalink]
05 May 2011, 12:15
A. Logical weakener
B. out of scope
C. out of scope
D. out of scope
E. Strengthens the argument
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2010
Posts: 109
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 15
|
Re: Please explain this one with fullest possible details thanks [#permalink]
05 May 2011, 14:18
A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Posts: 6
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 3
|
Re: Please explain this one with fullest possible details thanks [#permalink]
06 May 2011, 01:55
IMO A Conclusion: Air travel is becoming increasingly more dangerous. Evidence: In the last year there have been seven major collisions resulting in over 700 deaths, more deaths than in any previous year.Which statement, if true, would most weaken the argument above? (A) Since the volume of air traffic has been increasing all the time, an increase in the number of deaths due to collisions does not necessarily mean greater danger. --> Weaken the argument.
An increase of death people from air traffic last year does not mean that air travel is more dangerous. We should compare it in terms of % rather than number.
Last year: 700 deaths, the volume of air traffic 2 Million ---> 350 ppm.
Previous year: Let's assume 500 deaths, the volume of air traffic 1 Million --> 500 ppm.
As a result, percentage of air traffic death per fly in last year (350 ppm) is lower than that in previous year(500 ppm).(B) The increase in collisions can be explained by statistical coincidence, hijackings, and unusual weather. --> The given information described the cause of 700 deaths from air travel in last year but did not weaken the argument. (C) Mortality per passenger mile is lower for air travel than for any kind of surface transportation. --> Out of Scope - the argument discussed only air traffic transportation.(D) The increase in deaths due to collision in air travel has proceeded at a rate identical to that for deaths in all other major forms of transportation. --> Out of Scope - The argument did not compare death rate in air travel with other types of transportation.(E) Last year the average number of passengers per flown plane was significantly lower than that of previous years. --> Strengthen the argument
Last year: 700 deaths, the volume of air traffic 0.7 Million ---> 1,000 ppm.
Previous year: Let's assume 500 deaths, the volume of air traffic 1 Million --> 500 ppm.
As a result, percentage of air traffic death per fly in last year (1,000 ppm) is higher than that in previous year(500 ppm).
_________________
"You can do it if you believe you can!" - Napoleon Hill
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
Posts: 18
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 2
|
Re: Please explain this one with fullest possible details thanks [#permalink]
07 May 2011, 00:51
conclusion -Air traveli sdangerous
Assumtion-no acidents/deaths in other modes of travel
hence -c
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Posts: 67
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 8
|
Re: Please explain this one with fullest possible details thanks [#permalink]
09 May 2011, 18:28
I went with D, but later realized that author is not talking about other modes of travel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Please explain this one with fullest possible details thanks
[#permalink]
09 May 2011, 18:28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
