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.