Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Questions 1-2 The advanced technology of ski boots and [#permalink]
29 Mar 2004, 10:54
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
HideShow timer Statictics
The advanced technology of ski boots and bindings has brought a dramatic drop in the incidence of injuries that occur on the slopes of ski resorts: from 9 injuries per 1,000 skiers in 1950 to 3 in 1980. As a result, the remainder of ski-related injuries, which includes all injuries occurring on the premises of a ski resort but not on the slopes, rose from 10 percent of all ski-related injuries in 1950 to 25 percent in 1980. The incidence of these injuries, including accidents such as falling down steps, increases with the amount of alcohol consumed per skier.
1. Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage?
(A) As the number of ski injuries that occur on the slopes decreases, the number of injuries that occur on the premises of ski resorts increases.
(B) The amount of alcohol consumed per skier increased between 1950 and 1980.
(C) The technology of ski boots and bindings affects the incidence of each type of ski-related injury.
(D) If the technology of ski boots and bindings continues to advance, the incidence of ski-related injuries will continue to decline.
(E) Injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts made up a smaller percentage of ski-related injuries in 1980 than in 1950.
2. Which one of the following conflicts with information in the passage?
(A) The number of ski injuries that occurred on the slopes was greater in 1980 than in 1950.
(B) A skier was less likely to be injured on the slopes in 1950 than in 1980.
(C) The reporting of ski injuries became more accurate between 1950 and 1980.
(D) The total number of skiers dropped between 1950 and 1980.
(E) Some ski-related injuries occurred in 1980 to people who were not skiing.
U r an excellent contributor. People owe u a lot. I think u top the chart when it comes to patience, motivation and interest. You may score less in GMAT but u have great analytical skills and being a successful analyst does not depend on how good you perform in the test.
Now to the problem. These question can be solved by applying formula and it always works. All the answer choices except one are party true and partly false. One has to ask a question while examining the choices, can I confidently accept what is said.
A) argument talks about percentage or portion of injuries. If 2000 people did skiing in 1950 then 10 peole are injured. If 10000 people did skiing in 1980 then 30 people are injured. We dont know how many people skiied in 1980 or 1950. So A may or may not be true.
B) This cannot be told with confidence. Alcohal is one of the causes of injuries. May be a fight brokeout and resulted in fatalities or there was an accident of pileup of skiers, who knows? More importantly if number of people injured because of some reason decreases and number of people injured for some other reason remains constant then that number will increase in percentage of total number of people injured.
C) Could be true because it does not say how? Even if people consume alcohal and the new skie boot is complicated to wear then they might do a mistake easily and get injured. To some extent the boot played a role here.
D) This cannot be confirmed. The same explanation I gave for B about decrease in one percentage with increase in other percentage. Incidence is not same as percentage.
E) First of all the probability that injury dues to skie boot will occur is less in 1980 than in 1950. So percentage wise it has to be less given that percentage of other related injuries has increased.
A) Could be true depending on how many people skied.
B) This is probability. 5 in 1000 is greater than 3 in 1000. So P is greater in 1950 than in 1980. B says exactly opposite of this.
C) This is totally out of scope. Nothing about accuracy in reporting skie related injuries is mentioned. It may or may not be true.
D) This is possible because overall number if injuries might have reduced.
E) This is true because people who consumed alcohal on the premises were injured and definitely they were not skiing.
Brains are not very different unless they belong to geniuses. Training is different and that is what sets us apart. Paul and I have been on this forum very long. U will definitely improve if u pay attention. I hope u will sharpen your skills to a your satisfactory level.
Aspire, the GMAT has nothing to do with "brain". It's all about practice. The more you do, the better you become at giving the GMAT what it's asking you for. Other than that, it is really uncorrelated to your intelligence level.
Anandnk, I can say the same of you. Cheers buddy
And nice explanation _________________