Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 Feb 2017, 07:44

### 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
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 149
Location: Montreal
Schools: Harvard, Yale, HEC
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 18

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

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2009, 06:23
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

38% (02:20) correct 63% (01:15) wrong based on 13 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 ownerposted 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.
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 366
Schools: LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 22

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2009, 07:52
Which of the following, if true, would be most damaging to the argument above? - damaging as in weaken the conclusion?
(A) This year, the lake’s ownerposted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present. - extra information not given in stimulus.
(B) Drowning is not the lake owner’s only safety concern. - fails fact-test, otherwise the owner wouldn't have brought-in a new lifeguard.
(C) The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year. - extra information, nothing has been mentioned about how many were at the lake.
(D) Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards. - Generalized statement, not too strong, goes with the flow of the stimulus. Attacks the conclusion that new lifeguard is unnecessary.
(E) The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning. - Statement is too strong, "never", also extra-information never discussed in the stimulus.

This question should fall under the 600 to 650 category.
_________________

I am AWESOME and it's gonna be LEGENDARY!!!

Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 149
Location: Montreal
Schools: Harvard, Yale, HEC
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 18

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2009, 08:11
you are wrong buddy
Intern
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 3

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2009, 11:54
IMO A..
Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 24
Location: Russia
Schools: IESE, SDA Bocconi
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 4

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2009, 12:01
ezinis 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 ownerposted 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.

B is irrelevant; C is just additional fact; D - irrelevant because there were lifeguards last year also but two drownings occured anyway; E - strenghten the argument.

Is it A?
Intern
Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 12
Followers: 0

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

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2009, 12:59
A
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 149
Location: Montreal
Schools: Harvard, Yale, HEC
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 18

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2009, 13:36

The correct answer is (C). The argument’s conclusion is that the new lifeguard was
not a factor in the declining number of deaths from last year to this year. Choice (C)
rules out one other possible explanation for the decline in the number of drownings, in
turn rendering it more likely that the additional lifeguard did contribute to the decline.

The expln. doesn't convince me too much. What do you think guys?
Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 24
Location: Russia
Schools: IESE, SDA Bocconi
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 4

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2009, 22:26
ezinis wrote:

The correct answer is (C). The argument’s conclusion is that the new lifeguard was
not a factor in the declining number of deaths from last year to this year. Choice (C)
rules out one other possible explanation for the decline in the number of drownings, in
turn rendering it more likely that the additional lifeguard did contribute to the decline.

The expln. doesn't convince me too much. What do you think guys?

IMHO, the answer is dragged in. The additional lifeguard was ill half-summer, so how could "0.5 guard" contribute to the decline of drowning?? Very interesting and knotty problem...
Intern
Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Posts: 13
Followers: 0

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

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2009, 04:02
I still follow A. Not convinced with C.
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 225
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 264 [1] , given: 1

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2009, 08:07
1
KUDOS

(A) This year, the lake’s owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
-The argument is about the how the safety was affected by an addition of an extra lifeguard. So nothing to do with the warning post (Out of scope)

(B) Drowning is not the lake owner’s only safety concern. (Out of scope)

(C) The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.
-Despite the fact that the lake was this summer as crowded as last swimmer, no drowning has happened. This could be contributed to the presence of the new lifegaurd for nearly half the summer. Hence weakening the argument (Correct Answer)

(D) Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.
-But this answer choice doesn’t explain the affect of an extra lifeguard on the total safety
(E) The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning. (Strengthens)
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 149
Location: Montreal
Schools: Harvard, Yale, HEC
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 18

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2009, 11:57
do you think this kind of questions will appear in the actual GMAT? I am so frustrated.
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 225
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 264 [1] , given: 1

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2009, 19:34
1
KUDOS
ezinis wrote:
do you think this kind of questions will appear in the actual GMAT? I am so frustrated.

This question follows the generic GMAT argument structure. However it was a hard one. So this kind of question could appear in GMAT, if you are in 700 to 750 level.
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 428
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 372 [1] , given: 14

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2009, 01:10
1
KUDOS

(A) This year, the lake’s owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
-The argument is about the how the safety was affected by an addition of an extra lifeguard. So nothing to do with the warning post (Out of scope)

(B) Drowning is not the lake owner’s only safety concern. (Out of scope)

(C) The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.
-Despite the fact that the lake was this summer as crowded as last swimmer, no drowning has happened. This could be contributed to the presence of the new lifegaurd for nearly half the summer. Hence weakening the argument (Correct Answer)

(D) Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.
-But this answer choice doesn’t explain the affect of an extra lifeguard on the total safety
(E) The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning. (Strengthens)

Jade awesome explanation i thought exactly the same.....but couldn't put it down in words
anyways kudos to u
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 149
Location: Montreal
Schools: Harvard, Yale, HEC
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 18

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2009, 06:46

(A) This year, the lake’s owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
-The argument is about the how the safety was affected by an addition of an extra lifeguard. So nothing to do with the warning post (Out of scope)

(B) Drowning is not the lake owner’s only safety concern. (Out of scope)

(C) The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.
-Despite the fact that the lake was this summer as crowded as last swimmer, no drowning has happened. This could be contributed to the presence of the new lifegaurd for nearly half the summer. Hence weakening the argument (Correct Answer)

(D) Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.
-But this answer choice doesn’t explain the affect of an extra lifeguard on the total safety
(E) The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning. (Strengthens)

Not very convincing though. In order to say the new life guard did contribute to the safety of the lake... we need more assumption such as:
One: these 2 existing lifeguards are very incompetent, most drownings occurs during summer.
Two: what if the lake is located in south america, for example, where it is warm for most of the year and people can swim in Fall or Spring ....the argument does not rule out the fact that last year's drownings could happen in WINTER when lifeguards are probably stayed inside chit chating ....
Three: we need to also assume lifeguards will be less effective when the lake is crowded then when it is not crowded ... However I believe there are more chances of saving lives when the lake is crowded than when it is not, as people near by can probably do it better than those lifeguards as time is crucial here.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10632
Followers: 941

Kudos [?]: 207 [0], given: 0

Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2014, 10:41
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Current Student
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Posts: 300
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 680 Q48 V34
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 136 [0], given: 242

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2014, 20:26

(A) This year, the lake’s owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
-The argument is about the how the safety was affected by an addition of an extra lifeguard. So nothing to do with the warning post (Out of scope)

(B) Drowning is not the lake owner’s only safety concern. (Out of scope)

(C) The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.
-Despite the fact that the lake was this summer as crowded as last swimmer, no drowning has happened. This could be contributed to the presence of the new lifegaurd for nearly half the summer. Hence weakening the argument (Correct Answer)

(D) Lake activities are safer in the presence of lifeguards.
-But this answer choice doesn’t explain the affect of an extra lifeguard on the total safety
(E) The new lifeguard has never saved a person from drowning. (Strengthens)

I am still not convinced.

Because the sign was put, people were less careless or maybe there was a less turn out as people become aware that no lifeguard was present. At least those who don't know how to swim. Hence, instead of putting the sign, you need a new lifeguard.

According to option C, lake is equally crowded with swimmers. Why would swimmers drown in lake? No waves or anything right?
Well, I have never swam in a lake so I made this assumption
Manager
Joined: 25 Oct 2013
Posts: 173
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 56 [1] , given: 56

Re: this drives me crazy [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2014, 06:34
1
KUDOS
Well, why go very convoluted way to arrive at C? A gives explanation, people followed the warning and only tried swimming when the new life guard was present and his presence helped. Thereby weakening the argument.

Also, with C if you say, "This could be contributed to the presence of the new lifegaurd for nearly half the summer. Hence weakening the argument ", then on the flip side he was absent nearly half the summer and no drowning occurred so it indeed strengthens the argument that he was not needed isn't it?

This doesn't seem good question.

(A) This year, the lake’s owner posted a warning about swimming without a lifeguard present.
-The argument is about the how the safety was affected by an addition of an extra lifeguard. So nothing to do with the warning post (Out of scope)

(C) The lake has been equally crowded with swimmers this year as last year.
-Despite the fact that the lake was this summer as crowded as last swimmer, no drowning has happened. This could be contributed to the presence of the new lifegaurd for nearly half the summer. Hence weakening the argument (Correct Answer)

_________________

Click on Kudos if you liked the post!

Practice makes Perfect.

Re: this drives me crazy   [#permalink] 01 Mar 2014, 06:34
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 From last few years since 1972, pollution levels in Lake X 4 24 Dec 2015, 02:33
31 In the last two years alone, nearly a dozen of Central 18 17 Aug 2012, 18:56
8 Last year, of the reported thefts that occurred in shopping 6 10 Jul 2011, 19:15
43 A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s 22 12 Jul 2007, 08:27
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker s 0 21 Jun 2010, 10:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by