It is currently 22 Jun 2017, 12:12

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

During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1728

Show Tags

17 Jun 2006, 11:36
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

73% (02:06) correct 27% (00:40) wrong based on 32 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis of those figures, it can be concluded that it was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay at home as a civilian.
Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United States in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas
(B) Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths
(C) Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries
(D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths
(E) Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces.
Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 938
Location: France

Show Tags

17 Jun 2006, 12:05
jaynayak wrote:
During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis of those figures, it can be concluded that it was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay at home as a civilian.
Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United States in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas
(B) Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths
(C) Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries
(D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths
(E) Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces.

D
_________________

I believe its yogurt!

Director
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 791

Show Tags

17 Jun 2006, 12:35
D.

a) we are talking overseas armed forces here.
b) not much of a difference from existing stats
c) does not help
d)
e) accidents vs combat ?! nopes
_________________

Uh uh. I know what you're thinking. "Is the answer A, B, C, D or E?" Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1403

Show Tags

17 Jun 2006, 12:41
I agree with D is very sure it is likely to be correct

(A) nobody adds those deaths... the argument is about how likely it is to die overseas or in the US... not armed forces in US though
(B) nothing said about the difference
(C) out of scope... reasons are irrelevant
(D) the total number of civilians is far greater than the number of armed forces overseas, therefore comparing deaths is useless if you don't not the total for each group
(E) again, out of score... reasons are not the case of the argument.
SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1728

Show Tags

18 Jun 2006, 10:53
OA: D
Thanks..........
Intern
Joined: 31 Mar 2014
Posts: 20
Concentration: Operations, General Management
Schools: IIMA (PGPX)
Re: During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Aug 2014, 09:00
uring the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in the United States and about 408,000 members of the United States armed forces died overseas. On the basis of those figures, it can be concluded that it was not much more dangerous to be overseas in the armed forces during the Second World War than it was to stay at home as a civilian.
Which of the following would reveal most clearly the absurdity of the conclusion drawn above?
Conclusion: It was not much dangerous to be overseas in army than it was to stay at home.
How he arrived at conclusion : Comparing deaths. (assuming that : Total population of united states is same as number of people serving overseas in army) .
Weaken : We can weaken this by saying that percentage is deaths is way lesser among civilians than it is among armed forces.
KEY: averages, percentage increases, proportion questions you can't simply compare numerators. Death rate=(No.of.deaths in a target group)/ (total number of people) .

(A) Counting deaths among members of the armed forces who served in the United States in addition to deaths among members of the armed forces serving overseas
This completely ignores civilians. ofs
(B) Expressing the difference between the numbers of deaths among civilians and members of the armed forces as a percentage of the total number of deaths
This would have been correct answer if it had not have the word "difference" . % is the way to compare but not the difference in percentage.
(C) Separating deaths caused by accidents during service in the armed forces from deaths caused by combat injuries
source of death is out of scope
(D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total numbers of deaths
This is correct comparision. For every 1000 civilians how many have died. Compare it with how many have died serving in army overseas
(E) Comparing deaths caused by accidents in the United States to deaths caused by combat in the armed forces.
Again talking about only one side of the comparison that is about army.
Re: During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in   [#permalink] 29 Aug 2014, 09:00
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 In 2010, China comprised about 10 percent of the world's gross 4 19 Apr 2017, 06:10
Several people have died while canoeing 1 16 Jan 2014, 09:30
3 During the Jenovian War, about 128,000 Karthusian civilians 5 20 Dec 2015, 18:48
8 During the Second World War, about 375,000 civilians died in 8 03 Jul 2016, 02:13
8 CR : The world's best coffee 19 25 Aug 2016, 19:52
Display posts from previous: Sort by