Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 24 Aug 2016, 15:20

### 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

# Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

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

Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 May 2006, 19:21
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lake's owner added one more lifeguard to the lakefront staff. No drownings have occurred at the lake this year. However, the new lifeguard has been home with the flu for nearly half the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard was not needed after all.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?

a. This year, the lake's owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.

b. Drowning is not the lake owner's only safety concern.

c. The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.

d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.

e. The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.
VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1348
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 May 2006, 19:52
jdhar wrote:
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lake's owner added one more lifeguard to the lakefront staff. No drownings have occurred at the lake this year. However, the new lifeguard has been home with the flu for nearly half the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard was not needed after all.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?

a. This year, the lake's owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
b. Drowning is not the lake owner's only safety concern.
c. The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.
d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.
e. The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.

d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.
Manager
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 126
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 May 2006, 20:04
jdhar wrote:
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lake's owner added one more lifeguard to the lakefront staff. No drownings have occurred at the lake this year. However, the new lifeguard has been home with the flu for nearly half the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard was not needed after all.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?

a. This year, the lake's owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.

b. Drowning is not the lake owner's only safety concern.

c. The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.

d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.

e. The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.

"D". The owner's argument is that the new lifeguard was not required. "D" refutes the statement saying that lifeguards make lake activities safer.
VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1131
Location: India
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

17 May 2006, 20:19
Yes agree with D.
It directly attacks the argument in the passage.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 352
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

17 May 2006, 21:04
Why not A???
Is it because A is damaging the conclusion and not the argument??
Can someone please explain,how do we identify an 'argument'?
SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1737
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 May 2006, 21:46
alfa_beta01 wrote:
jdhar wrote:
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lake's owner added one more lifeguard to the lakefront staff. No drownings have occurred at the lake this year. However, the new lifeguard has been home with the flu for nearly half the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard was not needed after all.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?

a. This year, the lake's owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.

b. Drowning is not the lake owner's only safety concern.

c. The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.

d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.

e. The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.

"D". The owner's argument is that the new lifeguard was not required. "D" refutes the statement saying that lifeguards make lake activities safer.

THe lifeguard was not present for half the summer. So how is it safer then?
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 445
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 May 2006, 22:03
I bet on C

The argument here is not whether safeguards making the lake activities
safer, but whether this additional safeguard is really necessary.
Since the lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year, but at least half of the time there were more safeguards then
last year and no drownings have occured, one can conclude that more
safeguards were necessary to achieve that.
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 419
Location: Phoenix
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 01:40
Professor wrote:
jdhar wrote:
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lake's owner added one more lifeguard to the lakefront staff. No drownings have occurred at the lake this year. However, the new lifeguard has been home with the flu for nearly half the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard was not needed after all.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?

a. This year, the lake's owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
b. Drowning is not the lake owner's only safety concern.
c. The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.
d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.
e. The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.

d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.

Yes Prof, but
1. This is more statement'ish, axiomatic, without necessary proof.
2. How do you explain that when the guy wasn't around half the time, the lake was still safe?

The reason lies that the ppl didn't swim when he wasn't around, and that was coz of the board (Stmt A).

_________________

Who says elephants can't dance?

Director
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 898
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 04:25
kapslock wrote:
Professor wrote:
jdhar wrote:
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lake's owner added one more lifeguard to the lakefront staff. No drownings have occurred at the lake this year. However, the new lifeguard has been home with the flu for nearly half the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard was not needed after all.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?

a. This year, the lake's owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
b. Drowning is not the lake owner's only safety concern.
c. The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.
d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.
e. The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.

d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.

Yes Prof, but
1. This is more statement'ish, axiomatic, without necessary proof.
2. How do you explain that when the guy wasn't around half the time, the lake was still safe?

The reason lies that the ppl didn't swim when he wasn't around, and that was coz of the board (Stmt A).

So the poster helped prevent drownings... No additional lifeguard was needed....

This question does not have a correct answer!
Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 659
Location: London
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 05:46
I am going with A.

The argument says, that the appt of another lifeguard was not responsible for reducing the no of drownings

But A refutes that. It says the new appt was indeed necessary. But people were made aware that the new lifeguard was not there and that they must be careful.
Manager
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 126
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 07:37
kapslock wrote:
Professor wrote:
jdhar wrote:
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lake's owner added one more lifeguard to the lakefront staff. No drownings have occurred at the lake this year. However, the new lifeguard has been home with the flu for nearly half the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard was not needed after all.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?

a. This year, the lake's owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
b. Drowning is not the lake owner's only safety concern.
c. The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.
d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.
e. The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.

d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.

Yes Prof, but
1. This is more statement'ish, axiomatic, without necessary proof.
2. How do you explain that when the guy wasn't around half the time, the lake was still safe?

The reason lies that the ppl didn't swim when he wasn't around, and that was coz of the board (Stmt A).

1. We are asked to assume that the statement is correct ("if the statement is correct") and it doesn't matter whether the statement is axiomatic and doesn't require any proof.

2. I agree that none of the choices seem apt, but in GMAT there may not be a correct answer and sometimes you may need to select the "most likely" choice. This is the only choice that counters the main argument, hence has to be the right choice.

The main argument is that "new lifeguard didn't make any difference". However, "D" counters the argument saying that "lifeguards do indeed make a difference".

USE POE for this question to arrive at option D, as the other choices are more flawed than "D".
Manager
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 158
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 08:51
Liked deowl's explanation but wud hav never arrived at that option myself.
D is tempting but does not seem to b the perfect on.

VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1348
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 11:30
kapslock wrote:
Professor wrote:
jdhar wrote:
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lake's owner added one more lifeguard to the lakefront staff. No drownings have occurred at the lake this year. However, the new lifeguard has been home with the flu for nearly half the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard was not needed after all.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?

a. This year, the lake's owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
b. Drowning is not the lake owner's only safety concern.
c. The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.
d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.
e. The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.

d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.

Yes Prof, but
1. This is more statement'ish, axiomatic, without necessary proof.
2. How do you explain that when the guy wasn't around half the time, the lake was still safe?

The reason lies that the ppl didn't swim when he wasn't around, and that was coz of the board (Stmt A). Think about it.

i went after the argument that the additional lifeguard was not necessary. this argument is not true because if swimming is more safe with both lifeguards and it is the conceren of the lake owner, then two lifeguards saved the life of the people.

A actually supports the argument because if a warning sign does the lifeguard's job, then additional lifeguard is really not necessary. it is also taking about one lifeguard where as D is about lifeguards, so A supports the argument.

i think C could (or could not) support the argumnet. if the lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year, we donot know the distribution of the people. if there were more people when the new lifeguard was in leave, then it supports otherwise not.
Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 576
Location: Munich,Germany
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 May 2006, 03:43
jdhar wrote:
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lake's owner added one more lifeguard to the lakefront staff. No drownings have occurred at the lake this year. However, the new lifeguard has been home with the flu for nearly half the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard was not needed after all.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?

a. This year, the lake's owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.

b. Drowning is not the lake owner's only safety concern.

c. The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.

d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.

e. The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.

I agree with A.

The argument clealry states that there havent been any drowinings after the new lifeguard was employed. D states that lake activities are safer when lifeguards are present, this directly contradicts the argument. In A, however, we find reason that had the lifeguard been there there could have been a drowning but since he wasnt and the board was, it prevented the drownings from happenieng so his employment was necessary.
Manager
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 176
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2006, 09:56
We never got confirmation on the OA.

I think it's D.

A. Strengthens - The posted sign did the job of the lifeguard, so the lifeguard is not needed.

D clearly damges the argument by contrading the conclusion.
Intern
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 6
Location: India
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2006, 19:09
I will go with 'C'.

If the lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year, then last year the there were 2 cases of drownings and this year it is none. The reason drownings have reduced this year could be because of the presence of the lifeguard (for whatever period he was available). When he was not available could be people were more cautious seeing the notice.

I think 'C' is the right answer.

Appreciate if somone can post the OA.

Thanks.
Intern
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 22
Location: Toronto
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2006, 19:42
I will go with C, too.
D is really tempting but it's too vague. Is it impying that "additional" lifeguard makes lake safer or that the presence of "any" lifeguard assures the safety in lake? Not so clear.
So I will choose C.
CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2911
Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 230 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2006, 19:45
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lake's owner added one more lifeguard to the lakefront staff. No drownings have occurred at the lake this year. However, the new lifeguard has been home with the flu for nearly half the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard was not needed after all.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?

a. This year, the lake's owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.

====>If warning is the reason for no drowning then there is no need of lifeguard. STRENGTHENING

b. Drowning is not the lake owner's only safety concern.

====>OUT OF SCOPE

c. The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.

====>Bingo!! This means the chances of drowning are same as those of previous year and we need a lifeguard. WEAKENING

d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.

====>In person I agree with this statement but as stated in the argument that lifeguard was not present half of the summer, then how you can justify his need. STRENGTHENING

e. The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.

====>Clearly STRENGTHENING

_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 945
Location: France
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2006, 23:13
I think this was discussed earlier
A...oops i meant C
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 9168
Followers: 800

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 0

Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2016, 13:16
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.
Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this   [#permalink] 04 Feb 2016, 13:16
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 From last few years since 1972, pollution levels in Lake X 3 24 Dec 2015, 03:33
30 In the last two years alone, nearly a dozen of Central 18 17 Aug 2012, 19:56
8 Last year, of the reported thefts that occurred in shopping 6 10 Jul 2011, 20:15
4 Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this 16 12 Nov 2009, 07:23
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s 6 12 Jul 2007, 09:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by