Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the league have become concerned with the number of flagrant fouls occurring during league games. This past season, the number of flagrant fouls was double the number from the season before. League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls.

Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the officials’ plan will be effective?

a Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls.

b League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls.

c Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls.

d A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.

e Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team.

D. All other choices are either out of the scope or do not support officials’ plan.

I get E on this one.

League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls.

The argument is that by implementing mandatory suspensions it will discourage people from commiting flagrant fouls.

To strengthen this argument we need to show that the players are afraid of mandatory suspensions.

(E) Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team.

Statement E strengthens this argument becasue we now know most of the players will try not to get the flagrant fouls so they can be selected for the All-star team.

(D) A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.

This is the one they are trying to trick you with. They state that another league suspends players and they also have few fouls. But they do not state that the the suspensions are the reason for the low amount of fouls. Correlation does not equal causation.

Ex. League A has less aggresive kids who rarely commit flagrant fouls. They implement a suspension policy because they know it wont affect anyone.

League B has very aggresive kids who don't care about flagrant fouls or being suspended. They see that League A has less flagrant fouls and assumes that the suspension is the reason why. They implement the program and people don't care and commit the fouls anyway.

In order for the suspension to work they have to be an effective deterent.

I will go with D.
Reason E assumes that players are reasons behind fouls..means they intentionally do fouls. This kind of assumption nowhere is in the passage is mentioned. On the other hand D states..A similar league suspends ...means we can assume that both leagues are similar in nature. So if something is proven effective should in that league so be effective in youth hockey league as well.
Besides question askes for the evidence. D is the only evidence, E is not evidence at the most it can be only assumption.

Per NBA...A flagrant foul is a serious contact foul involving unnecessary and/or excessive and/or intentional contact in sport. anyways what the OA bsd?

E. We need to show why implementing mandatory suspension will indeed reduce the number of such fouls. If the players acknowledge that such foul play could lead to suspension that will hamper their slection for the All-Star team, they will be more careful to not commit them.

Although, D does look tempting there is no proof that what works for that team will definitely work for this team. And, it is quite possible that they implemented other strategies, in addition to the mandatory suspension, for the low incidence of flagrant fouls.

I will go with D.

In reviewing the answers everyone else has, E might strengthen the argument, however that's not the question. The question is which statement gives evidence that the plan will be effective?

I think you guys are disecting the questions too much. For critical reasoning questions there are six types of questions. A good acronym to remember them is SWIMME/R.

Strength
Weaken
Inference
Mimic
Method of Reason
Explain/Resolve

Every single question will be one of these types.

"Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the officials’ plan will be effective?"

This clearly is a strengthen question.

The first thing you need to do is identify the conclusion.

"League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls."

So we are trying to choose the answer that strengthes their conclusion that mandatory suspensions will reduce the number of flagrant fouls commited by players.

The questions are designed to fit within a certain framework. Once you understand the framework it makes it easier to get the answer.

I am choosing E. What's the OA?

Sure E.

D says relatively low incidence...
It may still be high enough to cause concern among parents/officials.
It is low when COMPARED with...team B..