It is currently 25 Jun 2017, 19:27

### 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

# Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Posts: 2
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 May 2006, 19:25
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lake's owner added one more lifeguard to the lakefront staff. No drownings have occurred at the lake this year. However, the new lifeguard has been home with the flu for nearly half the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard was not needed after all.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?

a. This year, the lake's owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.

b. Drowning is not the lake owner's only safety concern.

c. The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.

d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.

e. The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.
Manager
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 231

### Show Tags

17 May 2006, 20:02
I am not sure...
but I am going to go with D

The lake owner believes that there is no need of the new lifeguard. I need to prove that there is a need of a lifeguard....why is it that I feel I am not correct....
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 444

### Show Tags

17 May 2006, 21:33
C it is

The argument here is not whether safeguards making the lake activities
safer, but whether this additional safeguard is really necessary.
Since the lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year, but at least half of the time there were more safeguards then
last year and no drownings have occured, one can conclude that more
safeguards were necessary to achieve that.

Last edited by deowl on 18 May 2006, 00:41, edited 2 times in total.
Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 135

### Show Tags

17 May 2006, 21:39
A.
Director
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 897

### Show Tags

17 May 2006, 23:37
Going with C....

Simply because the beach became safer with one additional safeguard....
Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 789
Location: BULGARIA

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 00:38
Hallo,
I tried to analyse the argument. The auhtor concludes that there is no need for another lifeguard, because no drownings occured this year and he was ill half of the summer.
The Q is: What would be most damaging to the argument? As i understand the Q it is about weakening of the argument
A) If the warning is the reason for the absence of drownings then there is no need for another lifeguard so A is OUT
B) seems to disprove the claim that an extra lifeguard is needed so it is an option
C) If there were same numbers of people this year and last year, and there are no drownings and a lifeguerd is absent then C) supports the conclusion of the author
D) Seems an option, although it does not justify the hiring of another life guard since he was absent half of the summer yet no drownings have happened.
E) seems out of scope IMO

The choice that i think is closest to the point is B)
VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1127
Location: Bangalore

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 01:18
one more for A
Director
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 897

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 01:27
i analized this in this way:

The author says that there was no need for extra lifeguard since he was ill half the summer... However states that there were no drownings this year.... if there were no swimmers, there will be no drownings, one can assume.....

A) Contradicts the argument.... Author says additional lifeguard is not important, however statement says that with no lifeguards it is not safe to swim........

B) Out of scope..... It may not be the only concern, but do we care?

C) This one gives us the needed evidence.... If there were equal amount of swimmers this years compared to last year, the beach became safer.... It is the most damaging of the presented statements.....

D) Contradicts the argument.... More lifeguards more safe... not what the author is trying to prove....

E) Is streangthening not weakening the authors argument... therefore is out.....

thus C is the only one which is the MOST damaging.....
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418
Location: Phoenix

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 01:29
jdhar wrote:
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lake's owner added one more lifeguard to the lakefront staff. No drownings have occurred at the lake this year. However, the new lifeguard has been home with the flu for nearly half the summer, so it appears that the new lifeguard was not needed after all.

Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above?

a. This year, the lake's owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.

b. Drowning is not the lake owner's only safety concern.

c. The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.

d. Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.

e. The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning.

The argument is : The lifeguard wasn't needed at all. To damage the argument, I need to prove that the "drownings not happening" has happened because of some other reasons, and that doesn't mean lifeguard's not required.
1. Fills the bill. There's a new safety warning, that has led to the lake being safer. Hence no drowning. (I do accept argument that since the lake is safe now with the warning, the lifeguard might not be needed at all - but that isn't a very strong assertion, at least compared to the ones we are going to encounter now).
2. Irrlelevant. Owner's concern has nothing to do with lifeguard's necessity.
3. If the lake's been equally crowded, the chances of drowning should be equal to before (but there's been a warning, and a lifeguard at least half the times, so this is a good assertion, but we can counter it)
4. This also buttresses that lifeguard's needed, but doesn't give a concrete proof.
5. This actually gives credence to the theory that lifeguard was not needed - he never saved anyone anyway, so not needed.

I would therefore go with A, though I think C is a good choice too.
_________________

Who says elephants can't dance?

Director
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 897

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 01:31
Actually reread my more detailed analysis and became confused a bit
VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1127
Location: Bangalore

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 01:35
whats the OA?
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2005
Posts: 418
Location: Phoenix

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 01:37
SimaQ wrote:
Actually reread my more detailed analysis and became confused a bit

A bit is an understatement

I am totally perplexed - so I've stopped reading your detailed analysis.

Why don't you do this? Read mine, and punch holes in that.
_________________

Who says elephants can't dance?

Director
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 897

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 04:13
kapslock wrote:
SimaQ wrote:
Actually reread my more detailed analysis and became confused a bit

A bit is an understatement

I am totally perplexed - so I've stopped reading your detailed analysis.

Why don't you do this? Read mine, and punch holes in that.

The most confused explanation of mine is of statement D...

I actually still do not know which answer to choose..... What A) says is that the poster helped prevent the drownings ..... so effectively you do not need additional lifeguard.... thus it is supporting the author's argument...

However i would reject C also, since this statement does not prove that the additional lifeguard was needed... we can only assume it, which is wrong in GMAT.....

Very interesting CR....
Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 659
Location: London

### Show Tags

18 May 2006, 05:43
I am going with A.

The argument says, that the appt of another lifeguard was not responsible for reducing the no of drownings

But A refutes that. It says the new appt was indeed necessary. But people were made aware that the new lifeguard was not there and that they must be careful.
18 May 2006, 05:43
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
7 Canadian wheat farmers produced so much wheat over the last 10 06 Apr 2010, 07:07
In the two years following the unification of Germany in 9 15 May 2008, 18:35
5 In January of last year the Moviemania chain of movie 11 06 Mar 2008, 13:14
Corporate Officer: Last year was an unusually poor one for 7 19 Jan 2009, 18:12
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s 0 21 Jun 2010, 11:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by