Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
01 Jan 2026, 01:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
61% (01:15) correct
39%
(01:58)
wrong
based on 94
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Among the 5,000 students at Riverside University, 240 athletes and 1,200 non-athletes failed their final exams. Therefore, being a non-athlete was three times more dangerous for academic failure than being an athlete
Which most clearly demonstrates why the conclusion is illogical?
(A) Separating failures due to illness from those due to lack of preparation.
(B) Comparing the failure rate per hundred students in each group rather than absolute numbers.
(C) Including athletes who transferred mid-year in the totals.
(D) Calculating the failure difference as a percentage of total enrollment.
(E) Distinguishing team sports athletes from individual sport athletes.
Which most clearly demonstrates why the conclusion is illogical?
(A) Separating failures due to illness from those due to lack of preparation.
(B) Comparing the failure rate per hundred students in each group rather than absolute numbers.
(C) Including athletes who transferred mid-year in the totals.
(D) Calculating the failure difference as a percentage of total enrollment.
(E) Distinguishing team sports athletes from individual sport athletes.
07 Jan 2026, 13:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
Gmat860sanskar
Answer is B.
The argument compares raw counts of failures (240 athletes vs 1,200 non athletes) but never compares failure rates, which require knowing how many athletes and how many non athletes there are. If there are far more non athletes than athletes at the university, you would expect more non athlete failures even if non athletes are not “more dangerous” per student. The only relevant check is the failure rate per student (or per hundred students) in each group, not the absolute numbers.
10 Jan 2026, 08:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument presents absolute numbers—240 athletes and 1,200 non-athletes—to conclude that being a non-athlete is more dangerous for academic success. The logical flaw here is the failure to account for the total number of students in each category. This is known as a base rate fallacy.
To determine which group is at a higher risk, or which condition is more dangerous, one must compare the percentage of failures within each group rather than the raw totals. For example, if there are only 400 athletes in the university, their failure rate would be 60 percent. If there are 4,600 non-athletes, their failure rate would be approximately 26 percent. In this scenario, being an athlete would actually be far more dangerous for academic success, even though the absolute number of non-athlete failures is five times higher.
Choice A is incorrect because the reason for failure does not address the statistical comparison error. Choice B is correct because it identifies that failure rates per hundred students—a proportional measure—must be compared to validate the conclusion. Choice C is incorrect because mid-year transfers are a minor detail that does not resolve the fundamental issue of group size. Choice D is incorrect because calculating the difference as a percentage of the entire student body still hides the relative risk within each specific subgroup. Choice E is incorrect because further sub-dividing the athlete group does not fix the flawed comparison between athletes and non-athletes.
To determine which group is at a higher risk, or which condition is more dangerous, one must compare the percentage of failures within each group rather than the raw totals. For example, if there are only 400 athletes in the university, their failure rate would be 60 percent. If there are 4,600 non-athletes, their failure rate would be approximately 26 percent. In this scenario, being an athlete would actually be far more dangerous for academic success, even though the absolute number of non-athlete failures is five times higher.
Choice A is incorrect because the reason for failure does not address the statistical comparison error. Choice B is correct because it identifies that failure rates per hundred students—a proportional measure—must be compared to validate the conclusion. Choice C is incorrect because mid-year transfers are a minor detail that does not resolve the fundamental issue of group size. Choice D is incorrect because calculating the difference as a percentage of the entire student body still hides the relative risk within each specific subgroup. Choice E is incorrect because further sub-dividing the athlete group does not fix the flawed comparison between athletes and non-athletes.
