Improved technology and equipment often result in fewer injuries durin

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The correct answer is C.

The text states that preparation, like equipment, is a major factor in the risk of injury during high-risk activities. People who are poorly trained run a higher risk of injury even if provided with the best equipment. From this we can infer that whatever benefits might derive from the best equipment can be negated by improper training.
_________________

IMO C as
A: It never said which one is more important or better than the other
B: In question we are only concerned about higher risk
D: Same as A
E: Out of scope

Ans should be C. The conclusion of the question is stated in the last statement. C restates the same in different words.

I see A and C both are good candidates.

A)Training is a more important safety factor than equipment in high-risk
activities.
>> Passage says "But participant
education also plays a large role ...."
So training is most important.
C)The safety benefits of the latest equipment can be offset by inadequate
preparation.
>> From passage "People who are poorly trained in these activities run a
much higher risk of injury even if provided with the latest and best
equipment..."
So the 'inadequate' word fits well with 'poorly trained'.

IMO it is C.

OA is C.

B/w A and C, C is the best.
In the passage, there is no comparison b/w training and equipments but you can easily see that training plays a large role which is prephrased in option C says - The safety benefits of the latest equipment can be offset by inadequate preparation.

Improved technology and equipment often result in fewer injuries during high-risk activities such as rock climbing and scuba diving. But participant education also plays a large role in reducing the number of injuries sustained during these activities. People who are poorly trained in these activities run a much higher risk of injury even if provided with the latest and best equipment.

Which of the following can be properly inferred from the information above?

a)Training is a more important safety factor than equipment in high-risk activities.
The degree of safety for the equipment and the training are not compared. The passage says they are both important safety features but which one is better over the other, we don't know.


b)People who are properly trained in their activities do not sustain injuries.
Extreme situation -- DO NOT sustain injury. We just know that people who are NOT trained run at a high risk of injury compared with the people who are WELL trained. But, we can't say that people who are WELL trained WILL NOT incur injury. Saying that "they are at a lower risk of injury" is a better inference than saying that they do not have any risk of injury.


c)The safety benefits of the latest equipment can be offset by inadequate preparation.
People who are poorly trained in these activities run a much higher risk of injury even if provided with the latest and best equipment. Correct


d)Rock climbing and scuba diving are more risky than any other activities.
Rock climbing and scuba are chosen as two examples. The passage doesn't say that ONLY TWO known high risk activities such as Rock climbing and scuba OR anything similar. There may be more risky activities, such as base jumping or mountain biking.


e)People with the latest equipment often neglect proper training.
Nowhere do we see the negligence part mentioned.

Hello, all. I am happy to add my 2¢ here.

From what I can tell, this is an MGMAT question. In any GMAT CR inference question, the inference should be little more than a hair's breadth from what is explicitly stated in black & white.

From the conversation above, I will assume folks are clear why (B) & (D) & (E) are not correct. Let's look at (A) and (C).

(A) Training is a more important safety factor than equipment in high-risk activities.
Hmm. The prompt says equipment is important, but training is "also" important. That's the link word we get --- "also". That's a "joining" word, but not a comparative. In fact, the entire prompt is devoid of any comparative language. We are given zero information about whether equipment and training are equally important, or one is more important than the other. If you are going to infer a comparison, you need some comparative language as the basis of that inference, and here, we have absolutely no comparisons in the prompt. (A) is clearly incorrect.

(C) The safety benefits of the latest equipment can be offset by inadequate preparation.
This is more or less a restatement of the prompt final sentence: "People who are poorly trained in these activities run a much higher risk of injury even if provided with the latest and best equipment." THAT's a good GMAT inference --- something that does little more than restate something stated directly in the prompt. Both the last sentence and (C) are saying --- a manufacturer can design the very best scuba or rock-climbing equipment, but if a numbnut with no training sets out to scale Halfdome or take a pelagic dive of 150 ft, even the latest equipment might not be enough to protect them from their own inexperience and/or stupidity. (C) is the clear correct answer.

From my cursory scans of the MGMAT pages I found, it appears that (C) is the OA --- that is to say, the answer that MGMAT had in mind when they wrote the question.

Does all this make sense? If any of the above posters or anyone else reading this has any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Mike
_________________

Improved technology and equipment often result in fewer injuries during high-risk activities such as rock climbing and scuba diving. But participant education also plays a large role in reducing the number of injuries sustained during these activities. People who are poorly trained in these activities run a much higher risk of injury even if provided with the latest and best equipment.

Which of the following can be properly inferred from the information above?

a)Training is a more important safety factor than equipment in high-risk activities.
The degree of safety for the equipment and the training are not compared. The passage says they are both important safety features but which one is better over the other, we don't know.


b)People who are properly trained in their activities do not sustain injuries.
Extreme situation -- DO NOT sustain injury. We just know that people who are NOT trained run at a high risk of injury compared with the people who are WELL trained. But, we can't say that people who are WELL trained WILL NOT incur injury. Saying that "they are at a lower risk of injury" is a better inference than saying that they do not have any risk of injury.


c)The safety benefits of the latest equipment can be offset by inadequate preparation.
People who are poorly trained in these activities run a much higher risk of injury even if provided with the latest and best equipment. Correct


d)Rock climbing and scuba diving are more risky than any other activities.
Rock climbing and scuba are chosen as two examples. The passage doesn't say that ONLY TWO known high-risk activities such as Rock climbing and scuba OR anything similar. There may be more risky activities, such as base jumping or mountain biking.


e)People with the latest equipment often neglect proper training.
Nowhere do we see the negligence part mentioned.

The answer is C.

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.
_________________