During the American westward expansion, a certain city in : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 07 Dec 2016, 20:32

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# During the American westward expansion, a certain city in

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 128
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 106 [3] , given: 19

During the American westward expansion, a certain city in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2013, 10:10
3
KUDOS
9
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

60% (02:37) correct 40% (01:54) wrong based on 493 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

During the American westward expansion, a certain city in the eastern U.S. saw about 250 of its citizens depart for the west, but perish before arriving in their destination cities. During the same time period, the city saw about 225 deaths of citizens who stayed in the city. Based on these totals, it can be concluded that it was not much more perilous to be a settler who left the eastern U.S. to settle the western U.S. than it was to be a citizen who remained in the east.

Which of the following tests would most clearly reveal the flaw in the conclusion drawn above?

A.Counting deaths among people who left to settle the west but returned to their cities of origination in addition to those who died during their trips westward
B.Calculating the difference between the number of deaths among westward settlers and the number of deaths among non-settlers, then expressing this number as a percentage of all deaths during the period
C.Differentiating between settlers' deaths by non-settlement-related causes and those caused by accidents, murders, and battles attributable to the settlement process
D.Comparing the death rates per hundred members of each group instead of comparing the numbers of deaths in each group
E.Comparing deaths due to natural causes in the city of origin to unnatural deaths of settlers who originated in those cities

Awkward....
Chose C but was wrong....
Can someone explain the reasoning behind the OA?
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

If my answer helped, dont forget KUDOS!

IMPOSSIBLE IS NOTHING

If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2011
Posts: 129
Concentration: Strategy, Sustainability
Schools: Booth '15 (M)
WE: Business Development (Non-Profit and Government)
Followers: 69

Kudos [?]: 461 [2] , given: 41

Re: During the American westward expansion, a certain city in th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2013, 10:38
2
KUDOS
From the problem: "it can be concluded that it was not much more perilous..."

When comparing the peril of staying in an eastern city vs departing westward, the absolute numbers of deaths in each case don't matter, nor do the causes of death (answer C concerns causes of death). For example, it's fallacious to separate out murders and accidents and whatnot, because those may or may not occur at a higher rate in the city.

What matters is the relative number of deaths, no matter the cause, also known as the death rate. It is (# of deaths) divided by (# of people matching the criteria in question). Put simply, answer choice D.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 128
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 106 [1] , given: 19

Re: During the American westward expansion, a certain city in th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2013, 10:46
1
KUDOS
NonYankee wrote:
From the problem: "it can be concluded that it was not much more perilous..."

When comparing the peril of staying in an eastern city vs departing westward, the absolute numbers of deaths in each case don't matter, nor do the causes of death (answer C concerns causes of death). For example, it's fallacious to separate out murders and accidents and whatnot, because those may or may not occur at a higher rate in the city.

What matters is the relative number of deaths, no matter the cause, also known as the death rate. It is (# of deaths) divided by (# of people matching the criteria in question). Put simply, answer choice D.

Thanks.
I wonder if this reasoning will be easier for me to understand with more practice.
_________________

If my answer helped, dont forget KUDOS!

IMPOSSIBLE IS NOTHING

Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2011
Posts: 129
Concentration: Strategy, Sustainability
Schools: Booth '15 (M)
WE: Business Development (Non-Profit and Government)
Followers: 69

Kudos [?]: 461 [5] , given: 41

Re: During the American westward expansion, a certain city in th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2013, 10:54
5
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
roygush wrote:
NonYankee wrote:
From the problem: "it can be concluded that it was not much more perilous..."

When comparing the peril of staying in an eastern city vs departing westward, the absolute numbers of deaths in each case don't matter, nor do the causes of death (answer C concerns causes of death). For example, it's fallacious to separate out murders and accidents and whatnot, because those may or may not occur at a higher rate in the city.

What matters is the relative number of deaths, no matter the cause, also known as the death rate. It is (# of deaths) divided by (# of people matching the criteria in question). Put simply, answer choice D.

Thanks.
I wonder if this reasoning will be easier for me to understand with more practice.

Just one more thing: as I read the problem statement the first time, I was thinking, "250 died... out of how many?" and "225 died... out of how many?" I kept waiting for the total populations to be revealed. "Was it 250 out of 250? Was it 225 out of 10,000?" Without the "out of" number, I wasn't able to make a comparison (besides the relatively pedestrian conclusion that 25 more settlers died). So when I finished reading the problem statement and I still had not found the information I'd been waiting for, I knew exactly what to look for among the answer choices.
_________________
Senior Manager
Status: Making every effort to create original content for you!!
Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Posts: 490
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V34
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
Followers: 348

Kudos [?]: 1882 [7] , given: 82

Re: During the American westward expansion, a certain city in th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2013, 11:10
7
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
roygush wrote:
During the American westward expansion, a certain city in the eastern U.S. saw about 250 of its citizens depart for the west, but perish before arriving in their destination cities. During the same time period, the city saw about 225 deaths of citizens who stayed in the city. Based on these totals, it can be concluded that it was not much more perilous to be a settler who left the eastern U.S. to settle the western U.S. than it was to be a citizen who remained in the east.

Which of the following tests would most clearly reveal the flaw in the conclusion drawn above?

A.Counting deaths among people who left to settle the west but returned to their cities of origination in addition to those who died during their trips westward
B.Calculating the difference between the number of deaths among westward settlers and the number of deaths among non-settlers, then expressing this number as a percentage of all deaths during the period
C.Differentiating between settlers' deaths by non-settlement-related causes and those caused by accidents, murders, and battles attributable to the settlement process
D.Comparing the death rates per hundred members of each group instead of comparing the numbers of deaths in each group
E.Comparing deaths due to natural causes in the city of origin to unnatural deaths of settlers who originated in those cities

Awkward....
Chose C but was wrong....
Can someone explain the reasoning behind the OA?

Hi roygush,

Lets first simplify the stimulus.

Premises:

250 people left for west and died before reaching west

225 of the Eastern citizens died

Conclusion: it was not much more perilous to be a settler who left the eastern U.S. to settle the western U.S. than it was to be a citizen who remained in the east. To put this into simple words, going to west was not a very dangerous act as compared to staying back in the east.

The argument makes a comparison between "all the 250 people who left and died" and "225 people out of the whole eastern population"

So, before even moving to the answer choices, the flaw which comes to mind is that equal quantities are not being compared. Only the totals; moreover, the stimulus clearly states that "based on these totals". The correct answer to this question would point out this flaw in reasoning.

C.Differentiating between settlers' deaths by non-settlement-related causes and those caused by accidents, murders, and battles attributable to the settlement process

The stimulus discusses about the number of deaths and makes an incorrect comparison between them. Even if we differentiate between the cause the argument still remains flawed. So, (C) does not clearly reveal the flaw in the argument.

D.Comparing the death rates per hundred members of each group instead of comparing the numbers of deaths in each group

(D) corrects the flaw in the argument by bringing in the death rates, which is exactly what we need. Per hundred or per thousand does not matter until it is some rate. Now if we see the rates

The death rate for people who left for west = 250/250 = 1, this means that one out of every one will die. i.e. anyone who leaves for west will die.

and the death rate for people who stay in the east = 225/ a number larger than 225 = less than one. Based on the population the number could be anything. So, the conclusion could be anything based on the death rates. Until we know the death rates for both these events we will not be able to determine which activity will be more perilous than the other.

Hope this helps,

Vercules
_________________

Manager
Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 128
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 19

Re: During the American westward expansion, a certain city in th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2013, 11:52
Vercules wrote:
roygush wrote:
During the American westward expansion, a certain city in the eastern U.S. saw about 250 of its citizens depart for the west, but perish before arriving in their destination cities. During the same time period, the city saw about 225 deaths of citizens who stayed in the city. Based on these totals, it can be concluded that it was not much more perilous to be a settler who left the eastern U.S. to settle the western U.S. than it was to be a citizen who remained in the east.

Which of the following tests would most clearly reveal the flaw in the conclusion drawn above?

A.Counting deaths among people who left to settle the west but returned to their cities of origination in addition to those who died during their trips westward
B.Calculating the difference between the number of deaths among westward settlers and the number of deaths among non-settlers, then expressing this number as a percentage of all deaths during the period
C.Differentiating between settlers' deaths by non-settlement-related causes and those caused by accidents, murders, and battles attributable to the settlement process
D.Comparing the death rates per hundred members of each group instead of comparing the numbers of deaths in each group
E.Comparing deaths due to natural causes in the city of origin to unnatural deaths of settlers who originated in those cities

Awkward....
Chose C but was wrong....
Can someone explain the reasoning behind the OA?

Hi roygush,

Lets first simplify the stimulus.

Premises:

250 people left for west and died before reaching west

225 of the Eastern citizens died

Conclusion: it was not much more perilous to be a settler who left the eastern U.S. to settle the western U.S. than it was to be a citizen who remained in the east. To put this into simple words, going to west was not a very dangerous act as compared to staying back in the east.

The argument makes a comparison between "all the 250 people who left and died" and "225 people out of the whole eastern population"

So, before even moving to the answer choices, the flaw which comes to mind is that equal quantities are not being compared. Only the totals; moreover, the stimulus clearly states that "based on these totals". The correct answer to this question would point out this flaw in reasoning.

C.Differentiating between settlers' deaths by non-settlement-related causes and those caused by accidents, murders, and battles attributable to the settlement process

The stimulus discusses about the number of deaths and makes an incorrect comparison between them. Even if we differentiate between the cause the argument still remains flawed. So, (C) does not clearly reveal the flaw in the argument.

D.Comparing the death rates per hundred members of each group instead of comparing the numbers of deaths in each group

(D) corrects the flaw in the argument by bringing in the death rates, which is exactly what we need. Per hundred or per thousand does not matter until it is some rate. Now if we see the rates

The death rate for people who left for west = 250/250 = 1, this means that one out of every one will die. i.e. anyone who leaves for west will die.

and the death rate for people who stay in the east = 225/ a number larger than 225 = less than one. Based on the population the number could be anything. So, the conclusion could be anything based on the death rates. Until we know the death rates for both these events we will not be able to determine which activity will be more perilous than the other.

Hope this helps,

Vercules

Thanks.
I should pay more attention to words and go to the extremes.
Thinking like you, 225 out of the whole eastern population.
_________________

If my answer helped, dont forget KUDOS!

IMPOSSIBLE IS NOTHING

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10440
Followers: 886

Kudos [?]: 191 [1] , given: 0

Re: During the American westward expansion, a certain city in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2014, 10:49
1
KUDOS
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 74
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 102

Re: During the American westward expansion, a certain city in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2014, 19:50
very good explanation. thanks vercules

Vercules wrote:
roygush wrote:
During the American westward expansion, a certain city in the eastern U.S. saw about 250 of its citizens depart for the west, but perish before arriving in their destination cities. During the same time period, the city saw about 225 deaths of citizens who stayed in the city. Based on these totals, it can be concluded that it was not much more perilous to be a settler who left the eastern U.S. to settle the western U.S. than it was to be a citizen who remained in the east.

Which of the following tests would most clearly reveal the flaw in the conclusion drawn above?

A.Counting deaths among people who left to settle the west but returned to their cities of origination in addition to those who died during their trips westward
B.Calculating the difference between the number of deaths among westward settlers and the number of deaths among non-settlers, then expressing this number as a percentage of all deaths during the period
C.Differentiating between settlers' deaths by non-settlement-related causes and those caused by accidents, murders, and battles attributable to the settlement process
D.Comparing the death rates per hundred members of each group instead of comparing the numbers of deaths in each group
E.Comparing deaths due to natural causes in the city of origin to unnatural deaths of settlers who originated in those cities

Awkward....
Chose C but was wrong....
Can someone explain the reasoning behind the OA?

Hi roygush,

Lets first simplify the stimulus.

Premises:

250 people left for west and died before reaching west

225 of the Eastern citizens died

Conclusion: it was not much more perilous to be a settler who left the eastern U.S. to settle the western U.S. than it was to be a citizen who remained in the east. To put this into simple words, going to west was not a very dangerous act as compared to staying back in the east.

The argument makes a comparison between "all the 250 people who left and died" and "225 people out of the whole eastern population"

So, before even moving to the answer choices, the flaw which comes to mind is that equal quantities are not being compared. Only the totals; moreover, the stimulus clearly states that "based on these totals". The correct answer to this question would point out this flaw in reasoning.

C.Differentiating between settlers' deaths by non-settlement-related causes and those caused by accidents, murders, and battles attributable to the settlement process

The stimulus discusses about the number of deaths and makes an incorrect comparison between them. Even if we differentiate between the cause the argument still remains flawed. So, (C) does not clearly reveal the flaw in the argument.

D.Comparing the death rates per hundred members of each group instead of comparing the numbers of deaths in each group

(D) corrects the flaw in the argument by bringing in the death rates, which is exactly what we need. Per hundred or per thousand does not matter until it is some rate. Now if we see the rates

The death rate for people who left for west = 250/250 = 1, this means that one out of every one will die. i.e. anyone who leaves for west will die.

and the death rate for people who stay in the east = 225/ a number larger than 225 = less than one. Based on the population the number could be anything. So, the conclusion could be anything based on the death rates. Until we know the death rates for both these events we will not be able to determine which activity will be more perilous than the other.

Hope this helps,

Vercules

_________________

Press KUDOs if you find my explanation helpful

Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2014
Posts: 74
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 102

Re: During the American westward expansion, a certain city in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Oct 2014, 19:50
very good explanation. thanks vercules

Vercules wrote:
roygush wrote:
During the American westward expansion, a certain city in the eastern U.S. saw about 250 of its citizens depart for the west, but perish before arriving in their destination cities. During the same time period, the city saw about 225 deaths of citizens who stayed in the city. Based on these totals, it can be concluded that it was not much more perilous to be a settler who left the eastern U.S. to settle the western U.S. than it was to be a citizen who remained in the east.

Which of the following tests would most clearly reveal the flaw in the conclusion drawn above?

A.Counting deaths among people who left to settle the west but returned to their cities of origination in addition to those who died during their trips westward
B.Calculating the difference between the number of deaths among westward settlers and the number of deaths among non-settlers, then expressing this number as a percentage of all deaths during the period
C.Differentiating between settlers' deaths by non-settlement-related causes and those caused by accidents, murders, and battles attributable to the settlement process
D.Comparing the death rates per hundred members of each group instead of comparing the numbers of deaths in each group
E.Comparing deaths due to natural causes in the city of origin to unnatural deaths of settlers who originated in those cities

Awkward....
Chose C but was wrong....
Can someone explain the reasoning behind the OA?

Hi roygush,

Lets first simplify the stimulus.

Premises:

250 people left for west and died before reaching west

225 of the Eastern citizens died

Conclusion: it was not much more perilous to be a settler who left the eastern U.S. to settle the western U.S. than it was to be a citizen who remained in the east. To put this into simple words, going to west was not a very dangerous act as compared to staying back in the east.

The argument makes a comparison between "all the 250 people who left and died" and "225 people out of the whole eastern population"

So, before even moving to the answer choices, the flaw which comes to mind is that equal quantities are not being compared. Only the totals; moreover, the stimulus clearly states that "based on these totals". The correct answer to this question would point out this flaw in reasoning.

C.Differentiating between settlers' deaths by non-settlement-related causes and those caused by accidents, murders, and battles attributable to the settlement process

The stimulus discusses about the number of deaths and makes an incorrect comparison between them. Even if we differentiate between the cause the argument still remains flawed. So, (C) does not clearly reveal the flaw in the argument.

D.Comparing the death rates per hundred members of each group instead of comparing the numbers of deaths in each group

(D) corrects the flaw in the argument by bringing in the death rates, which is exactly what we need. Per hundred or per thousand does not matter until it is some rate. Now if we see the rates

The death rate for people who left for west = 250/250 = 1, this means that one out of every one will die. i.e. anyone who leaves for west will die.

and the death rate for people who stay in the east = 225/ a number larger than 225 = less than one. Based on the population the number could be anything. So, the conclusion could be anything based on the death rates. Until we know the death rates for both these events we will not be able to determine which activity will be more perilous than the other.

Hope this helps,

Vercules

_________________

Press KUDOs if you find my explanation helpful

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10440
Followers: 886

Kudos [?]: 191 [0], given: 0

Re: During the American westward expansion, a certain city in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2015, 05:21
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Intern
Joined: 11 Dec 2012
Posts: 34
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 59

Re: During the American westward expansion, a certain city in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Dec 2015, 22:52
The flaw here is the fact that argument compares all 250 people left east then died to the population of all eastern cities whereas the population can be 100 000 people and only 225 among them died.
Re: During the American westward expansion, a certain city in   [#permalink] 16 Dec 2015, 22:52
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 The downtown area of the city of Stannicton is bustling during the 1 26 Aug 2015, 09:29
7 A certain city offers publicly owned, desirable 26 22 Mar 2011, 02:09
Five years ago, during the first North American outbreak of 8 14 Jul 2010, 02:50
Five years ago, during the first North American outbreak of 2 07 Jun 2009, 06:09
Five years ago, during the first North American outbreak of 6 22 Feb 2008, 02:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by