The simple facts are these: the number of people killed each year by grizzly bears is about the same as the number of people killed by lightning on golf courses. And the number of people killed by lightning on golf course each year is about the same as the number of people electrocuted by electric blenders. All the horrible myths and gruesome stories aside, therefore, a grizzly bear is in fact about as dangerous as an electric blender or a game of golf.

Which one of the following, if true, would most effectively undermine the author's argument?

(A) Although the number of people killed by lightning on golf courses each year is very small, the total number of lightning fatalities is many times greater.

(B) Electric blenders are among the safest household appliances; were the author to compare fatalities from electrical appliances in general, she would get a much higher figure.

(C) Most people would rather take their chances with blenders and golf games than with grizzly bears.

(D) Bears in general,including black, brown, and cinnamon bears, as well as grizzly bears,kill many more people than do electric blenders.

(E) Statistics show that the number of times people use electric blenders each year exceeds the number of times people play golf each year, which in turn far exceeds the number of contacts people have with grizzly bears each year.

Please explain with explanation.

E for me too...The more the encounters the greater the chances.....

E from me too...

Vivek
_________________

"Start By Doing What Is Necessary ,Then What Is Possible & Suddenly You Will Realise That You Are Doing The Impossible"

Guys, I am getting confused here. I apologize if I sound stupid. But I feel asking questions is better than keeping quiet and assuming wrong things.


E says that the number of times people use electric blenders each year exceeds the number of times people play golf each year, which in turn far exceeds the number of contacts people have with grizzly bears each year.
Now the number of people killed by bears is about the same as the number of people electrocuted by electric blenders. In other words, with less number of contacts, the number of people killed by bears is about the same as the number of people killed by blenders (more contact). Hence i guess bears are equally dangerous. In that case how does E undermine the argument.

Thanks Paul. Please clarify me if I am wrong.

Are you trying to undermine the argument by proving that bears are more dangerous than either using blenders or playing golf?

Actually I was trying to undermine the argument by looking for an answer that would suggest that bears are less dangerous than the other two. Thats the reason I was confused with E. It did not come to my mind that i can undermine by taking the other approach(proving that bears are more dangerous).

Am I right?

I refer you to the conclusion: "a grizzly bear is in fact about as dangerous as an electric blender or a game of golf".
The question is asking you to "undermine the author's argument".
In order to undermine the conclusion that bears ARE NOT that dangerous, you have to find an argument that says that bears ARE dangerous. E points it out.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Guys, please explain.

I would have gone for E but what put me off was using the term "play golf". To be honest there are more people on the golf course who are not playing that those who are playing. Even they could be killed by lightning.The question should use consistent terms about people killed by lightning on golf courses and people killed by lightning while actually *playing* on the golf courses. This made me choose D. Please help me understand.
Thanks.