In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Ver

Question

In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?

(A) A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.

(B) Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.

(C) Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.

(D) Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled.

(E) Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.

ID: 100812

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Since we are looking for an answer choice that most undermines the force of the evidence cited, let's start by identifying that evidence: "the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago."

According to the author, this evidence "clearly" leads to the concern that plastic sleds, which became more popular ten years ago, are more dangerous than wooden sleds. To recap the author's argument:

Wooden sleds, with runners and steering bars, were used in the past. 
 Ten years ago, plastic sleds became popular. 
 Plastic sleds are faster, harder to steer, and harder to slow down. 
 "The number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago." Remember that ten years ago plastic sleds had just become popular, so it is likely that wooden sleds were still prevalent as well (it's possible to have more than one  popular  option). But we can infer that plastic sleds are probably more popular now than they were ten years ago. 
 The evidence in the last bullet clearly leads to the concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds.

Now let's look for the answer choice that most undermines the force of the evidence cited:

Again, the evidence cited is "that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago." This evidence seems to suggest that plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds. Even if a few children still use traditional wooden sleds, if injuries have increased since plastic sleds became popular, this still seems to suggest that plastic sleds are more dangerous.

The evidence cited does not require that ALL children use plastic sleds, so (A) can be eliminated.

This statement might explain why sledding is dangerous  regardless  of the type of sled. However, it doesn't give us any reason to suspect that plastic sleds are safer than wooden sleds or vice versa. Thus, choice (B) has no impact on the evidence cited and can be eliminated.

Imagine that plastic sleds and wooden sleds were both equally safe. But if plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions, then children last winter might have simply gone sledding more times, on average, than children ten years ago. In other words, the  odds  of getting injured while riding a plastic sled could be the same as the  odds  of getting injured while riding a wooden sled. But if you can go sledding more times with a plastic sled, then you will have more opportunities to injure yourself.

Answer choice (C) provides an alternative explanation for the evidence, and this explanation does not require that plastic sleds are  more  dangerous than wooden sleds. So (C) undermines the force of the evidence cited. Keep this one.

As with choice (B), this is a general statement that presumably applies to sledding with both wooden and plastic sleds. It has no bearing on the evidence and can be eliminated.

We are GIVEN the fact that "the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago." Maybe there are more injuries per accident with wooden sleds, but this does not change the fact that, overall, there were more injuries last winter than there were when wooden sleds were more prevalent. We are not trying to  change  the evidence; rather, we are trying to  undermine the force  of the evidence. Choice (E) has no impact on the evidence and can be eliminated.

Choice (C) is the best answer.

TommyWallach · Answer

Hey All,

The one thing I try to avoid when reviewing is writing off too many answer choices as "no effect" or "out of scope". This tends to ignore the subtlety of certain answer choices, and leads one to an attitude of ALL or NOTHING in terms of answer choices. Dangerous.

Conclusion: Plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds.

Premises: In past 10 years, plastic sleds have become more popular than wooden. More children injured on sleds now than 10 years ago.

Already, you should be able to see the assumption. We jumped to danger, without considering any other factors

Assumption: Some other factor is responsible for the jump in injuries (more people using sled, for example).

(A) A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.
PROBLEM: This doesn't weaken the argument. In fact, this is the argument. The whole idea is that lots of people are using plastic sleds, which are dangerous. A few children doesn't change that.

(B) Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.
PROBLEM: This doesn't compare wooden sleds to plastic sleds, so doesn't explain why one might be more dangerous.

(C) Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.
ANSWER: Now the plastic sled can get used a lot more often. This would explain why there are so many more injuries, because there's a lot more sledding going on. The argument that plastic sleds are more dangerous is now unlikely.

(D) Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled.
PROBLEM: Like B, this doesn't differentiate between wooden and plastic sleds.

(E) Because the traditional wooden sleds can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.
PROBLEM: We want to weaken the argument that plastic sleds are dangerous. Making wooden sleds hurt more people doesn't actually affect that. If anything, this strengthens the argument. If multiple people could get wounded on one wooden sled, then why would the #s be EVEN HIGHER for injuries on a plastic sled?

Hope that helps!

LogicGuru1 · Answer

Answer is C

EXPLAINATION:-
In weaken questions one must try to attack the conclusion of the argument. Because there is a logical error in the conclusion and by revealing the error, you can show that the conclusion is weak. A weak conclusion makes the entire argument invalid (if the argument is deductive) or uncogent (if the argument is inductive). Also remember in Weaken question, we can use New Information.

Lets try to do this here
The argument tells us that Plastic sleds have these qualities:- faster, bad handling (hard to steer), weak brakes (harder to slow).
"Plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow" ===> mentioned in passage
Now if something skids fast, cannot be stopped and cannot be handled, it will crash more frequently and more injuries will occur.

The argument also tells us that Plastic Sleds have been used for 10 years but the rate of accident was higher only last year.
Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular ===> mentioned in passage
The number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago. ===> mentioned in passage
Suddenly during last year the accident number has gone up? Why ? LET US INVESTIGATE.

A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.
This should actually cause less accident, since wooden sleds are safer. DISCARD OPTION A

B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.
Well, children must not be wearing protection for 10 years. Why accidents have gone up last year only. doesn't answer this question. DISCARD OPTION B

C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.
At first glance looks out of scope or irrelevant...BUT KEEP IT FOR LATER ANALYSIS

D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled.
So suddenly last year many trees, many rocks and many sleds appear? No indication about that DISCARD OPTION D

E. Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.
This is reverse answer. More Wooden Sled = More injuries. So accidents should have been more 10 years ago when wooden sleds were used, not now. DISCARD OPTION E

What remains with us now is only option C which looked out of scope, or irrelevant
Now no matter, whether we like it or not it has to be the answer.

Lets Analyse it again
C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.

Wooden sled can only be used in good weather when snow is soft and fresh, when there is no storm, when there is no fog, when visibility is good etc etc. Also given they are safer.

Plastic sled can be used in much wider condition such as when there is snow storm, still snowing, when the snow is hard and can cause injury on impact etc etc.

So may be last year something happened that has not happened in a long time after the introduction of plastic sleds. Finally after 10 years, last year snow conditions were bad. Now if people used wooden sleds , they could not sled because their wooden sleds don't have the capability. So NO sleds = NO accidents.
But Plastic sleds can still sleds in such extreme conditions. So people being stupid, ignored the bad condition and went out and coupled with the fact that plastic sleds are injury prone, People got injured and injured again and injured again. Stupid People

AND WHY DOES THIS HAPPENED:- THE BLAME LIES ON PLASTIC SLEDS BECAUSE THEY CAN WORK IN A VARIETY OF WEATHER CONDITIONS (INCLUDING BAD CONDITIONS)

Thats what exactly option C says

CORRECT ANSWER C

In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?
A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.
B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.
C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.
D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled.
E. Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.

AND WHY DOES THIS HAPPENED:- THE BLAME LIES ON PLASTIC SLEDS BECAUSE THEY CAN WORK IN A VARIETY OF WEATHER CONDITIONS (INCLUDING BAD CONDITIONS) Thats what exactly option C says CORRECT ANSWER C In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago. Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited? A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds. B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding. C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can. D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled. E. Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.

anshunadir · Answer

The argument concludes that The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

If we read the question stem closely, it asks which option undermines the force of evidence, that is which option attacks the reason provided in the argument for increase in injuries while using plastic sled. option C clearly provides an alternative reason.

OA to this question is C only

I have checked in other threads as well.

nhattruong1302 · Answer

Explanation for choice C

Conclusion: the number of children injured while sledding was much higher than it was ten years ago => plastic sleds more dangerous.

Assumption: the number of children who involve in accidences is representative for each sleds. In other words, the number of time that children use plastic sleds is comparable to that of children using wooden sleds

Weaken: the assumption. hence choice C is correct

Divyadisha · Answer

I chose 'C' over 'D'.

The reason for this was that 'owning' a sled does not mean that children are actually 'sledding'. It is possible that they are just owning it but not using it.

However, option 'C' says that safety precautions are not used and that might have resulted in more injuries.

Any thoughts, folks??

KyleWiddison · Answer

Choice D is the correct answer because you want to find some information that weakens the argument. It's a classic GMAT-like argument that attempts to compare raw numbers when rates really should be compared. This issue is highlighted by choice D which states that the number of sleds (and by extension sledders) has grown significantly with the introduction of the cheaper plastic sled. This increase in sleds could lead to a higher NUMBER of accidents with a lower RATE of accidents overall, thus weakening the conclusion.

You have a valid point about the sleds not necessarily equating directly with sledders, but remember that with CR you are choosing the best answer available. Choice C doesn't provide any differentiation between now and 15 years ago. If it had (by mentioning that protective gear was used heavily 15 years ago but not anymore) then C would be a strong answer choice.

KW

sudhirmadaan · Answer

KyleWiddison  I know E cannnot be the answer because it gives no information about Plastics sleds, but what if E had (by mentioning that today Plastics sleds carry 4 riders and traditional wooden carry 2 riders), would this be the possible contender. 
My reasoning to this is "number of injuries more not because number of acc but because carry more slders". PLease share your thoughts on this.

KyleWiddison · Answer

The real issue with E isn't so much that is doesn't compare wooden vs. plastic sleds but rather the issue is the unnecessary information on injuries per crash. Look at the wording of the argument. We are comparing the gross number of injuries attributed to plastic or wooden sleds, not injuries per sled. Whether a sled carries 1 or 100 riders is irrelevant because the data sums all the injuries related to sledding. If the argument had discussed injuries per crash and E discussed the comparison between wood and plastic then E would be in contention.

KW

KW

sarathgopinath · Answer

Hi
No reply talks about A and I am wondered.

A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.

I chose A because if the number of people using plastic is more or wood is less, that explains the discrepancy in the evidence. 
Could you help me understand where I am going wrong?

GMATNinja · Answer

The evidence cited is "that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago  ." This evidence seems to suggest that plastic sleds are more dangerous. Even if  a few  children still use traditional wooden sleds, if injuries have increased since plastic sleds became popular, this still suggests that plastic sleds are more dangerous.

The evidence cited does not require that ALL children use plastic sleds, so (A) can be eliminated.

BrentGMATPrepNow · Answer

Summarize the argument..

PREMISE: Kids used to use wooden sleds
PREMISE: 10 years ago, plastic sleds came
PREMISE: plastic sleds are faster and harder to steer and slow
PREMISE: more kids injured last year than 10 years ago
  CONCLUSION: plastic sleds are more dangerous

Now, check each answer choice and be sure to remind ourselves of the  conclusion

(A) A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.
Does this weaken the conclusion that  plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds ?
No. 
If anything, it strengthens the argument by suggesting that most children ride on plastic sleds these days. 
ELIMINATE A

(B) Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.
Does this weaken the conclusion that  plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds ?
No. 
 IF  it were the case that all/most children wore protective gear 10 years ago and, nowadays, they DON'T wear protective gear, then that would weaken the argument, since we could say that the lack of protective gear (and not the plastic sleds) caused the increase in injuries 
However, since we aren't told that this is the case, we can ELIMINATE B

(C) Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.
Does this weaken the conclusion that  plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds ?
Yes!
This means that children with plastic sleds can do A LOT MORE sledding than they can do with wooden sleds. 
So, it seems that the increase in sledding opportunities (and not the plastic sleds) is what caused the increase in injuries 
KEEP C

(D) Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled.
Does this weaken the conclusion that  plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds ?
No. 
If anything, it strengthens the argument, since the difficult-to-steer plastic sleds will likely run into a lot more trees etc. 
ELIMINATE D

(E) Because the traditional wooden sleds can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.
Does this weaken the conclusion that  plastic sleds are more dangerous than wooden sleds ?
No. 
ELIMINATE E

Answer: C

Cheers,
Brent

KarishmaB · Answer

10 yrs ago wooden sleds were used.
Then plastic sleds came in and became popular. They go faster and are harder to steer.
Number of children injured while sledding last year was higher than the number 10 yrs ago.

Conclusion: Plastic sleds are more dangerous.

We need to undermine this conclusion. Here are some thoughts on what could undermine this: Perhaps last year, many more kids went for sledding than did 10 yrs ago (so perhaps there are many more kids now or a much higher percentage goes out to sled). The % of kids that get injured while sledding is comparable. The number of kids who get injured is not. Also, what if kids used to wear safety equipment 10 yrs and they do not now? That could account for more injuries now. etc
Our answer would give us some distinction between 10 yrs ago and last year other than wooden vs plastic sleds.

(A) A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.

"a few children" wouldn't matter. Also, this is a similarity between 10 yrs ago and last year, not distinction.

(B) Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.

Did they wear this gear 10 yrs ago, we don't know. From the stmnt, it seems like a habit among kids at all times. So it doesn't give us a distinction.

(C) Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.

Correct. This gives us a distinction. With plastic sleds, kids could be sledding in severe weather conditions too which could be the reason for more accidents. So plastic sled may not be more dangerous. Perhaps it is being used in dangerous conditions too while wooden sleds are not is dangerous conditions.

(D) Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled.

Irrelevant. No distinction.

(E) Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.

This says why more children could have been injured 10 yrs ago. But since more children are injured now, it does seem to imply that plastic sleds are more dangerous. So it doesn't weaken our argument.

Answer (C)

shob22 · Answer

In option A, what if the all the children who were injured used wooden sled. If that is the case we can clearly conclude that plastic sleds are not dangerous than wooden sled because even if few children used the wooden one, the injured ones used wooden sled. Won't this weaken the cited evidence?

GMATNinja · Answer

The passage tells us that, in the past, two things were true: most children who went sledding used wooden sleds, and there were fewer sledding injuries.

Since then, plastic sleds have become popular and injuries have increased.

Looking again at (A): we can't assume that the "few" children who continue to use wooden sleds are the ones getting injured. That doesn't match up with the information in the passage, which tells us that the number of injuries was  lower  when MOST children used wooden sleds. (A) doesn't give us any reason to suspect that the wooden sleds are any more dangerous now than they used to be.

Instead, it's much more reasonable to stick with the reasoning of the passage -- sure, a few kids still use wooden sleds. But we'd expect their number of injuries to remain the same as always, so the difference must come from the dangerous plastic sleds.

(A) doesn't weaken the force of the evidence in the argument, because we can't just assume that all of these new injuries are caused by the wooden sleds.

I hope that helps!

kittle · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja  thank you for explaining this. But how can only the fact that the plastic sled "CAN BE USED" more often be used to prove that "ACTUALLY CHILDREN MORE OFTEN WENT TO SLEDDING"?

I rejected this choice thinking that the mere fact some sled has more versatility doesn't mean that it would have been used more often. I was looking for answers pertaining to more visits maybe but did not find that in here.

Could you please explain how I should have altered my way of thinking? Thank you very much.

GMATNinja · Answer

You raise a good point -- (C) does not EXPLICITLY state that plastic sleds were used more frequently. But if (C) is true, it suggests that plastic sleds MIGHT be used more frequently. And if this is the case, then (C) undermines the evidence.

Keep in mind that you are trying to find "which of the following...  most seriously  undermines the force of the evidence cited." Since (C) COULD weaken the evidence, you don't want to eliminate it right away -- it might be the best option that we have.

While you could make an argument that (C) doesn't PROVE that the evidence totally sucks, it clearly does a better job at undermining the evidence than the other options. Remember: the right answer doesn't need to be  perfect . It just needs to be the  best  of the available options.

I hope that helps!

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

Hello expert,
I have read the expert’s explanation, but they didnot address my question, so I request expert again. My question is on E, I think E can weaken, cuz it means most of the injured were caused by wooden sleds. Let me take an example:

10 years ago, the number of injured was 40, all caused by wooden sleds (since there were no or few plastic sleds then). 
Last year, the number of injured was 42 (higher than that of 10 years ago), but still 40 were caused by wooden sleds, and only 2 were caused by plastic sleds, so we cannot say plastic sleds are more dangerous, although the number of the injured increased.

Any expert can help to explicate? Much thx.

GMATNinja · Answer

As you suggest, this conclusion has a fairly obvious weakness. Just because plastic sleds have become more popular, and just because there were more accidents last year than ten years ago, doesn't mean that the plastic sleds are ACTUALLY more dangerous.

As you point out, we don't even know if the plastic sleds actually  caused  more accidents than wooden sleds. Maybe there were 40 accidents caused by wooden sleds and only 2 by plastic? If that were true, that would definitely weaken the argument.

But does (E) tell us that more accidents were caused by wooden sleds than plastic sleds? Not really.

Notice that this doesn't tell us anything about  plastic  sleds. Do they carry only one rider? More than one? Do they carry more riders than wooden sleds? We have no idea, so we definitely can't conclude that wooden sleds are more dangerous than plastic sleds based on this.

On top of that, it's not even clear that having more riders would make a sled more dangerous. Because if a sled is otherwise really safe, then having more riders wouldn't make them more dangerous.

For both of those reasons, we can eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!

In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Ver

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Ver

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards