It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 11:45

### 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

# Grizzly bears

Author Message
Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 524

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Location: US

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2006, 12:00
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 courses 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 is an assumption that the author relies upon in the passage?
(A) Most incidents involving grizzly bears are fatal.
(B) Grizzly bears are no longer the danger they once were.
(C) The number of fatalities per year is an adequate indication of somethingâ€™s dangerousness.
(D) A golf course is a particularly dangerous place to be in a thunderstorm.
(E) Something is dangerous only if it results in death in the majority of cases.

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 45

Kudos [?]: 54 [3], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2008, 01:01
3
KUDOS
k/y =kills per year
GB= Grizzly Bears
L= Lighting
E=Electrolocution

FACT ==> K/y due to GB = K/y due to L = K/y due to E
Conclusion ==> Danger from GB = Danger from L= Danger from E

Clearly (K/y or no of deaths) are assumed synonymous to (Danger) here. A clear cut (E).

Kudos [?]: 54 [3], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: 17 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2008, 01:03
1
KUDOS
Cool Approach. Stuck b/n C and E. Now clear on this.

Kudos [?]: 17 [1], given: 0

VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1338

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2006, 12:52
E. if E is not true, the argument doesnot hold.

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 937

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Location: France

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2006, 16:22
C...

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418

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

Location: Phoenix

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2006, 16:37
C.

Since the passage tries to prove that Grizzly bears are as dangerous as golf and blenders, based on number of fatalities (which, according to passage are roughly the same in all three cases).
_________________

Who says elephants can't dance?

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

VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1338

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2006, 20:01
kapslock wrote:
C.

Since the passage tries to prove that Grizzly bears are as dangerous as golf and blenders, based on number of fatalities (which, according to passage are roughly the same in all three cases).

does the passage talk about the fatalities? nope. it talks about the number of deaths...

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 524

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Location: US

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2006, 20:38
OA is C....

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1338

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2006, 21:16
mahesh004 wrote:
OA is C....

source?

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1728

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2006, 02:31
Professor wrote:
kapslock wrote:
C.

Since the passage tries to prove that Grizzly bears are as dangerous as golf and blenders, based on number of fatalities (which, according to passage are roughly the same in all three cases).

does the passage talk about the fatalities? nope. it talks about the number of deaths...

Fatalities mean death right

Will go with C.
The talks about three different thing and the rate of death /fatalities in each case.

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1399

Kudos [?]: 222 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2006, 12:04
Professor wrote:
kapslock wrote:
C.

Since the passage tries to prove that Grizzly bears are as dangerous as golf and blenders, based on number of fatalities (which, according to passage are roughly the same in all three cases).

does the passage talk about the fatalities? nope. it talks about the number of deaths...

but professor, fatalities mean deaths... isn't that right?

i chose C also

Kudos [?]: 222 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 621

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2006, 12:48
^ C ^

E says that one thing is dangerous if it causes deaths in many ocassions. In the original question stem we have different incidents, not one common thing in all incidents.

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1115

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 1

Location: India

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2006, 20:05
mahesh004 wrote:
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 courses 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 is an assumption that the author relies upon in the passage?
(A) Most incidents involving grizzly bears are fatal.
(B) Grizzly bears are no longer the danger they once were.
(C) The number of fatalities per year is an adequate indication of somethingâ€™s dangerousness.
(D) A golf course is a particularly dangerous place to be in a thunderstorm.
(E) Something is dangerous only if it results in death in the majority of cases.

C is better than E.
The whole reasoning is done comparing the number of fatalities.

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 1

VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1257

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2006, 20:11
Going with C...

Comparison between the various methods of deaths is based on equivalent number of deaths. So C.

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 168

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Location: Vienna, Austria

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 06:40
can someone of our CR gurus apply the assumption negation technique on this on?

cheers

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 653

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 07:05
should be a clear C

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1258

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 17:25
C is fine. But how is it better than E? I mean whts wong with E?

Kudos [?]: 527 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1402

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2008, 15:00
mahesh004 wrote:
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 courses 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 is an assumption that the author relies upon in the passage?
(A) Most incidents involving grizzly bears are fatal.
(B) Grizzly bears are no longer the danger they once were.
(C) The number of fatalities per year is an adequate indication of somethingâ€™s dangerousness.
(D) A golf course is a particularly dangerous place to be in a thunderstorm.
(E) Something is dangerous only if it results in death in the majority of cases.

NP killed by GB= NP killed by L on GC = NP killed by E

Conc is GB is as dangerous as EB or G

Look at C and negate it. number of fatalities (deaths/NP killed) is not an adequate indication of dangerousness. Conclusion falls apart because the premises are all about numbers killed by each to reach the conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 786

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 25

### Show Tags

21 Dec 2008, 16:49
C for me as well.

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 25

Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 74

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Dec 2008, 07:31
go with C

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 0

Re: Grizzly bears   [#permalink] 28 Dec 2008, 07:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by