Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 08 Mar 2014, 21:58

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The simple facts are these: the number of people killed each

Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 154
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

The simple facts are these: the number of people killed each [#permalink]  25 Mar 2004, 07:50
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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.

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 0

Only E makes the relationship between number/proportion clear. Say 1 person uses the blender 10 times a year and 1 person dies using it, then the death ratio would be 10%. Say 1 person meets a bear and dies, then the death ratio is 100%. In both instances, the same number of people died by using a blender/encountering a bear. E points out the flaw in the reasoning in that it omits to account for the proportion of people who die in each of the events
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 188
Location: illinois
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

E for me too...The more the encounters the greater the chances.....
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1799
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

I would choose E.

The probability that contact with bear results in fatality is higher than that in case of blenders and game on Golf courses.
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 154
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

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.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 0

aspire wrote:
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.

Never hesitate to ask a question. By asking it, you will also help other members understand the question. The part I put in red is your interpretation of the facts. When the sentence says that the number of people killed by bears is about the same as the number of people electrocuted by electric blenders, it really means that it is the "number of people", not "the number of contact". Refer to my original answer and think of it this way: If 100 000 persons use blenders and 1 dies, is it more dangerous an activity than if only 1 person encounters a bear and gets killed by it.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 154
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

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?
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4318
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 121 [0], given: 0

aspire wrote:
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

Last edited by Paul on 25 Mar 2004, 20:24, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 649
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

killed by lightning on golf courses does not mean playing [#permalink]  19 Jun 2007, 10:46

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.
killed by lightning on golf courses does not mean playing   [#permalink] 19 Jun 2007, 10:46
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The simple facts are these: the number of people killed each 2 02 Nov 2004, 00:06
As a part of a game, 4 people each choose one number from 1 7 16 Apr 2006, 18:07
The simple facts are these: the number of people killed each 2 18 Feb 2008, 05:16
1 A number of people each wrote down one of the first 30 posit 6 30 Nov 2008, 18:53
Roland: the alarming fact is that 90% of the people in this 1 16 Jun 2011, 09:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by