ykaiim wrote:
Improved technology and equipment often result in fewer injuries during high-risk activities such as rock climbing and scuba diving. But participant education also plays a large role in reducing the number of injuries sustained during these activities. People who are poorly trained in these activities run a much higher risk of injury even if provided with the latest and best equipment.
Which of the following can be properly inferred from the information above?
(A) Training is a more important safety factor than equipment in high-risk activities.
(B) People who are properly trained in their activities do not sustain injuries.
(C) The safety benefits of the latest equipment can be offset by inadequate preparation.
(D) Rock climbing and scuba diving are more risky than any other activities.
(E) People with the latest equipment often neglect proper training.
Hello, all. I am happy to add my 2¢ here.
From what I can tell, this is an
MGMAT question. In any GMAT CR inference question, the inference should be little more than a hair's breadth from what is explicitly stated in black & white.
From the conversation above, I will assume folks are clear why (B) & (D) & (E) are not correct. Let's look at (A) and (C).
(A)
Training is a more important safety factor than equipment in high-risk activities.Hmm. The prompt says equipment is important, but training is "also" important. That's the link word we get --- "also". That's a "joining" word, but not a comparative. In fact, the entire prompt is devoid of any comparative language. We are given zero information about whether equipment and training are equally important, or one is more important than the other.
If you are going to infer a comparison, you need some comparative language as the basis of that inference, and here, we have absolutely no comparisons in the prompt. (A) is clearly incorrect.
(C)
The safety benefits of the latest equipment can be offset by inadequate preparation.This is more or less a restatement of the prompt final sentence: "
People who are poorly trained in these activities run a much higher risk of injury even if provided with the latest and best equipment." THAT's a good GMAT inference --- something that does little more than restate something stated directly in the prompt. Both the last sentence and (C) are saying --- a manufacturer can design the very best scuba or rock-climbing equipment, but if a numbnut with no training sets out to scale
Halfdome or take a pelagic dive of 150 ft, even the latest equipment might not be enough to protect them from their own inexperience and/or stupidity. (C) is the clear correct answer.
From my cursory scans of the
MGMAT pages I found, it appears that (C) is the OA --- that is to say, the answer that
MGMAT had in mind when they wrote the question.
Does all this make sense? If any of the above posters or anyone else reading this has any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep
Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
close
72% (01:12) correct 
