|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 155
Location: Montreal
Schools: Harvard, Yale, HEC
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 18
|
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this [#permalink]
 12 Nov 2009, 07:23
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
100% (02:16) wrong based on 0 sessions
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 ownerposted 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 371
Schools: LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
Followers: 11
Kudos [?]:
74
[0], given: 22
|
Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]
12 Nov 2009, 08:52
Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above? - damaging as in weaken the conclusion? (A) This year, the lake’s ownerposted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present. - extra information not given in stimulus. (B) Drowning is not the lake owner’s only safety concern. - fails fact-test, otherwise the owner wouldn't have brought-in a new lifeguard. (C) The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year. - extra information, nothing has been mentioned about how many were at the lake. (D) Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards. - Generalized statement, not too strong, goes with the flow of the stimulus. Attacks the conclusion that new lifeguard is unnecessary. (E) The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning. - Statement is too strong, "never", also extra-information never discussed in the stimulus. My answer would be D. This question should fall under the 600 to 650 category.
_________________
I am AWESOME and it's gonna be LEGENDARY!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 155
Location: Montreal
Schools: Harvard, Yale, HEC
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 18
|
Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]
12 Nov 2009, 09:11
you are wrong buddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 22
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 3
|
Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]
12 Nov 2009, 12:54
IMO A.. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 24
Location: Russia
Schools: IESE, SDA Bocconi
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
22
[0], given: 4
|
Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]
12 Nov 2009, 13:01
ezinis 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 ownerposted 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. B is irrelevant; C is just additional fact; D - irrelevant because there were lifeguards last year also but two drownings occured anyway; E - strenghten the argument. Is it A?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 12
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]
12 Nov 2009, 13:59
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 155
Location: Montreal
Schools: Harvard, Yale, HEC
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 18
|
Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]
12 Nov 2009, 14:36
Official Answer:
The correct answer is (C). The argument’s conclusion is that the new lifeguard was
not a factor in the declining number of deaths from last year to this year. Choice (C)
rules out one other possible explanation for the decline in the number of drownings, in
turn rendering it more likely that the additional lifeguard did contribute to the decline.
The expln. doesn't convince me too much. What do you think guys?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 24
Location: Russia
Schools: IESE, SDA Bocconi
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
22
[0], given: 4
|
Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]
12 Nov 2009, 23:26
ezinis wrote: Official Answer:
The correct answer is (C). The argument’s conclusion is that the new lifeguard was
not a factor in the declining number of deaths from last year to this year. Choice (C)
rules out one other possible explanation for the decline in the number of drownings, in
turn rendering it more likely that the additional lifeguard did contribute to the decline.
The expln. doesn't convince me too much. What do you think guys? IMHO, the answer is dragged in. The additional lifeguard was ill half-summer, so how could "0.5 guard" contribute to the decline of drowning?? Very interesting and knotty problem...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Posts: 14
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]
13 Nov 2009, 05:02
I still follow A. Not convinced with C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 229
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
55
[0], given: 1
|
Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]
13 Nov 2009, 09:07
IMO the answer is C
(A) This year, the lake’s owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
-The argument is about the how the safety was affected by an addition of an extra lifeguard. So nothing to do with the warning post (Out of scope)
(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.
-Despite the fact that the lake was this summer as crowded as last swimmer, no drowning has happened. This could be contributed to the presence of the new lifegaurd for nearly half the summer. Hence weakening the argument (Correct Answer)
(D) Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.
-But this answer choice doesn’t explain the affect of an extra lifeguard on the total safety
(E) The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning. (Strengthens)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 155
Location: Montreal
Schools: Harvard, Yale, HEC
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 18
|
Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]
13 Nov 2009, 12:57
do you think this kind of questions will appear in the actual GMAT? I am so frustrated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 229
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
55
[1] , given: 1
|
Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]
13 Nov 2009, 20:34
1
This post received
KUDOS
ezinis wrote: do you think this kind of questions will appear in the actual GMAT? I am so frustrated. This question follows the generic GMAT argument structure. However it was a hard one. So this kind of question could appear in GMAT, if you are in 700 to 750 level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 432
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
52
[1] , given: 14
|
Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]
14 Nov 2009, 02:10
1
This post received
KUDOS
jade3 wrote: IMO the answer is C
(A) This year, the lake’s owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
-The argument is about the how the safety was affected by an addition of an extra lifeguard. So nothing to do with the warning post (Out of scope)
(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.
-Despite the fact that the lake was this summer as crowded as last swimmer, no drowning has happened. This could be contributed to the presence of the new lifegaurd for nearly half the summer. Hence weakening the argument (Correct Answer)
(D) Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.
-But this answer choice doesn’t explain the affect of an extra lifeguard on the total safety
(E) The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning. (Strengthens) Jade awesome explanation i thought exactly the same.....but couldn't put it down in words anyways kudos to u
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 155
Location: Montreal
Schools: Harvard, Yale, HEC
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 18
|
Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]
14 Nov 2009, 07:46
jade3 wrote: IMO the answer is C
(A) This year, the lake’s owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
-The argument is about the how the safety was affected by an addition of an extra lifeguard. So nothing to do with the warning post (Out of scope)
(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.
-Despite the fact that the lake was this summer as crowded as last swimmer, no drowning has happened. This could be contributed to the presence of the new lifegaurd for nearly half the summer. Hence weakening the argument (Correct Answer)
(D) Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.
-But this answer choice doesn’t explain the affect of an extra lifeguard on the total safety
(E) The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning. (Strengthens) Not very convincing though. In order to say the new life guard did contribute to the safety of the lake... we need more assumption such as: One: these 2 existing lifeguards are very incompetent, most drownings occurs during summer. Two: what if the lake is located in south america, for example, where it is warm for most of the year and people can swim in Fall or Spring ....the argument does not rule out the fact that last year's drownings could happen in WINTER when lifeguards are probably stayed inside chit chating .... Three: we need to also assume lifeguards will be less effective when the lake is crowded then when it is not crowded ... However I believe there are more chances of saving lives when the lake is crowded than when it is not, as people near by can probably do it better than those lifeguards as time is crucial here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: this drives me crazy
[#permalink]
14 Nov 2009, 07:46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar
Topics:
|
 |
|
|
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this
|
jdhar |
18 |
17 May 2006, 19:21 |
|
|
|
|
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this
|
jdhar |
13 |
17 May 2006, 19:25 |
 |
1
|
|
Last year, of the reported thefts that occurred in shopping
|
agdimple333 |
3 |
10 Jul 2011, 20:15 |
|
|
1
|
|
I am drowning. Send me an SOS......
|
lordzilla |
8 |
16 Aug 2011, 08:23 |
|
|
|
|
In the last two years alone, nearly a dozen of Central
|
SOURH7WK |
5 |
17 Aug 2012, 19:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
