GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 May 2019, 19:37

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2813
Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 May 2008, 01:25
2
16
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

69% (01:35) correct 31% (01:40) wrong based on 1322 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the league have become concerned with the number of flagrant fouls occurring during league games. This past season, the number of flagrant fouls was double the number from the season before. League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls.

Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the officials’ plan will be effective?


(A) Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls.

(B) League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls.

(C) Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls.

(D) A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.

(E) Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team.
Most Helpful Community Reply
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 485
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2008, 11:25
4
3
I get E on this one.

League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls.

The argument is that by implementing mandatory suspensions it will discourage people from commiting flagrant fouls.

To strengthen this argument we need to show that the players are afraid of mandatory suspensions.

(E) Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team.

Statement E strengthens this argument becasue we now know most of the players will try not to get the flagrant fouls so they can be selected for the All-star team.

(D) A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.

This is the one they are trying to trick you with. They state that another league suspends players and they also have few fouls. But they do not state that the the suspensions are the reason for the low amount of fouls. Correlation does not equal causation.

Ex. League A has less aggresive kids who rarely commit flagrant fouls. They implement a suspension policy because they know it wont affect anyone.

League B has very aggresive kids who don't care about flagrant fouls or being suspended. They see that League A has less flagrant fouls and assumes that the suspension is the reason why. They implement the program and people don't care and commit the fouls anyway.

In order for the suspension to work they have to be an effective deterent.
General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 266
Location: Washington DC
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2008, 11:50
I will go with D.
Reason E assumes that players are reasons behind fouls..means they intentionally do fouls. This kind of assumption nowhere is in the passage is mentioned. On the other hand D states..A similar league suspends ...means we can assume that both leagues are similar in nature. So if something is proven effective should in that league so be effective in youth hockey league as well.
Besides question askes for the evidence. D is the only evidence, E is not evidence at the most it can be only assumption.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 485
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2008, 11:59
2
marshpa wrote:
I will go with D.
Reason E assumes that players are reasons behind fouls..means they intentionally do fouls. This kind of assumption nowhere is in the passage is mentioned. On the other hand D states..A similar league suspends ...means we can assume that both leagues are similar in nature. So if something is proven effective should in that league so be effective in youth hockey league as well.
Besides question askes for the evidence. D is the only evidence, E is not evidence at the most it can be only assumption.


This can be tricky if you are not familiar with the terminology. A flagrant foul is an intentional foul. You cannot accidentaly get a flagrant foul. Examples would be intentionally hitting, yelling at the referee, etc.

I agree in D that they are similar leagues. The problem is that D does not state that the suspensions are what cuased them to have fewer fouls. Notice it's just two statements seperated by a semicolon. They want you to assume that, but it's not stated.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 485
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2008, 14:05
2
I think you guys are disecting the questions too much. For critical reasoning questions there are six types of questions. A good acronym to remember them is SWIMME/R.

Strength
Weaken
Inference
Mimic
Method of Reason
Explain/Resolve

Every single question will be one of these types.

"Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the officials’ plan will be effective?"

This clearly is a strengthen question.

The first thing you need to do is identify the conclusion.

"League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls."

So we are trying to choose the answer that strengthes their conclusion that mandatory suspensions will reduce the number of flagrant fouls commited by players.

The questions are designed to fit within a certain framework. Once you understand the framework it makes it easier to get the answer.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2813
Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 May 2008, 18:19
2

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:



League officials plan to reduce the number of flagrant fouls by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit such fouls. This plan will work only if the punishment serves to deter players from committing flagrant fouls.

(A) The cause of injuries has no bearing on whether suspensions will deter players from committing flagrant fouls.

(B) While the referees’ effectiveness in recognizing and reporting flagrant fouls will surely aid in the implementation of the new policy, this has no bearing on whether the policy will deter players from committing flagrant fouls.

(C) The parents’ opinion has no bearing on whether the suspensions will deter players from committing flagrant fouls.

(D) While we might conclude that the other, similar league has a low incidence of flagrant fouls because it suspends players who commit such fouls, we have no evidence to show that the suspensions actually deter players from committing fouls. It is entirely possible that the other league has a low incidence of flagrant fouls for other reasons. For example, maybe the players in the other league are just inherently less aggressive.

(E) CORRECT. If players want to make the All-Star team, and if a record of suspension precludes these players from being selected for the team, then players are less likely to commit fouls that will lead to suspensions.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2015
Posts: 25
Location: Nigeria
Schools: HEC '18, IE '19, ESADE '18
GPA: 3.2
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jan 2016, 17:23
4
[quote="souvik101990"]Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the league have become concerned with the number of flagrant fouls occurring during league games. This past season, the number of flagrant fouls was double the number from the season before. League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls. Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the officials’ plan will be effective?

A. Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls. In my opinion,this is off totally..We are asked if the officials plan will be effective..This option does not give us any strong reason to believe that the plan will actually be effective..it talks about most serious injuries occurring during league games as a result of flagrant fouls..This is off.

B. League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls.We are told that league officials here have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls..This is also off in my view as it does not give us any reason to believe that the plan will be effective

C. Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls.Irrelevant to the problem of knowing whether the plan will be effective or not

D. A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.This analogous assumption does not mean that the same plan will be effective here.Just because it happened in another league does not mean that the same result will also occur here

E. Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team.This is the correct answer..the threat of not making the all star team due to a record of suspension will act as a sufficient deterrent to players committing flagrant fouls..They have something to lose and thus will have that in the back of their mind that there is a cost for any record of suspension


PLEASE LEAVE A KUDOS IF YOU LIKE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION!!!!A KUDOS WILL BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED!!!THANK YOU
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 23 Jan 2016
Posts: 181
Location: India
GPA: 3.2
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Feb 2017, 12:27
ok. now what if the referee is untrained and is unable to recognize a flagrant foul. then there wouldnt be a point in having the rule would it?

B makes sense because it fixes a potential loophole in the argument. Please advise on why it is wrong.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2873
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Feb 2017, 05:00
2
OreoShake wrote:
ok. now what if the referee is untrained and is unable to recognize a flagrant foul. then there wouldnt be a point in having the rule would it?

B makes sense because it fixes a potential loophole in the argument. Please advise on why it is wrong.


The argument is about whether the fouls will be made in the first place. If the rules are stringent as stated in option E, the fouls will not be made. It is of lesser importance whether the referee can identify whether the foul has been made or not - if the rule as stated in E is not there, identifying the foul would not help deter the number of fouls, and on the other hand if the rule is there, fouls will not be made. Thus the role of referee competence is less than the role of having such a rule in reducing the number of fouls.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Feb 2016
Posts: 88
GMAT 1: 690 Q43 V41
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2017, 11:30
Can anyone explain why is B not a good contender for this, if not the correct answer? If Leagues officials are not trained to spot those fouls, the impact of the policy would stop even before reaching the mandatory suspension stage, wouldn't it?
Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3629
Reviews Badge
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jul 2017, 11:16
2
TheMastermind wrote:
Can anyone explain why is B not a good contender for this, if not the correct answer? If Leagues officials are not trained to spot those fouls, the impact of the policy would stop even before reaching the mandatory suspension stage, wouldn't it?


Hi TheMastermind ,

This is a typical goal plan question.

Goal: To reduce the foul.

Plan:
To implement the mandatory suspension policy.

We need to provide best evidence that proves that the officials’ plan will be effective.

This is what option E is doing.

Let's talk about option B.

League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls.

Ok, fine. They are trained and they will report. Probability is that more fouls get reported.

But do you really think players would take this seriously and do not do any foul?

We need to find out the reason for players to prevent doing fouls. B is no where close to it.

If you are assuming that they may get more cautious, you are bringing an outside information, my friend. :)

Negating the information could tell us that chances are going to increase but what about if we still have this point valid.

Remember, your aim is to strengthen the plan such that goal is more likely to be achievable.

I hope that makes sense. :)
_________________
My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place
Blog: Subscribe to Question of the Day Blog
GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.
New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!
Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free
Check our new About Us Page here.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 30 May 2017
Posts: 14
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2017, 07:06
I chose D and according to experts the reason why its not the answer is that established analogy can not be justified. But I came across a similar question and the unjustified analogy is OA i.e A . can anyone please help? Totally confused after this :(



Advocate: Millions of plastic shopping bags are discarded every day in the United States. Plastic bags present a problem for the environment because they do not readily decompose, but will remain intact for thousands of years. Policy makers agree that the best solution to the problem is to convince people to bring their own shopping bags so that they do not need disposable plastic bags. Therefore, the U.S. government should implement a tax on disposable plastic bags because this will have the desired effect of dramatically decreasing the number of plastic bags discarded each day in the United States.

Which of the following provides the strongest reason to believe that the plan to levy a tax on disposable plastic bags will be successful in greatly reducing the number of plastic bags being discarded?

(A) A similar tax in several European countries resulted in a 90% decrease in the number of plastic bags used by consumers each year.

(B) Current incentives, such as crediting customers 5 or 10 cents for each reusable bag, have resulted in only a small decrease in the number of plastic bags discarded.

(C) Some customers are very concerned about the environmental impacts of plastic bags and will bring reusable bags without any financial incentive.

(D) The bill has substantial support with the Congressional delegations of many states and with the current administration.

(E) The bill could be implemented and the tax collected using a very simple addition to the programming of electronic cash registers.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2474
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Sep 2017, 00:47
2
aksh5900 wrote:
I chose D and according to experts the reason why its not the answer is that established analogy can not be justified. But I came across a similar question and the unjustified analogy is OA i.e A . can anyone please help? Totally confused after this :(

https://gmatclub.com/forum/advocate-mil ... .html?sd=d

There is a key difference between answer choice (D) in this question and answer choice (A) in the other thread:

Other question (correct answer):

Quote:
(A) A similar tax in several European countries resulted in a 90% decrease in the number of plastic bags used by consumers each year.

In the other question, choice (A) specifically states that the similar tax RESULTED IN a 90% decrease. In other words, the statement tells us that the tax CAUSED the decrease in the number of plastic bags.

This question (wrong answer):

Quote:
D. A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.

However, in choice (D) of this question, we do not know that suspending players for committing flagrant fouls CAUSES the relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls. There could be a number of other reasons that the other league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls.

In the hockey question, choice (D) might provide evidence that the officials’ plan will be effective, but choice (E) provides much stronger evidence. Since we are looking for the best evidence, (E) is a better answer.
_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Dec 2017
Posts: 8
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 May 2018, 23:44
1
The key to this question's answer is to avoid the Shell answers like option D. In most of strengthening CR, one of the option choices will be there which compares the current argument's conclusion with other scenario's conclusion. We need to straight away eliminate it to get the right answer. Thus avoiding one of the GMAT CR traps.

Another Example for practice :
https://gmatclub.com/forum/cr-revision- ... 12026.html

Please give KUDOS if you just got enlighten!
BSchool Forum Moderator
avatar
P
Joined: 05 Jul 2017
Posts: 511
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 4
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Dec 2018, 08:37
GMATNinja nightblade354

I feel option E is flawed. Below is my reasoning, Let me know your thoughts

(E) Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team.

E states the word "Most" --> It could mean

Case 1: -
- If the league has 100 players, 51 players strive to be selected in the "All Star" team and 49 players don't
- 49 players can still commit fouls and the # of fouls can remain the same or more
- So there is still a case in which the plan cannot be effective

Case 2 : -
- If the league has 100 players, 100 players strive to be selected in the "All Star" team
- In this case, the fouls committed will be less and the plan will be effective

Hence, I feel option E is incorrect
_________________
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 600
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Reviews Badge
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Dec 2018, 10:32
pikolo2510,

(E) isn't perfect, but it is the best for what we have been given. The goal of league is to reduce the number of flagrant fouls. So if 51 out of 100 players do not want to commit a foul, this will mean less than half the league will be likely to commit one. This all said, we need to assume the number of fouls right off the bat (for example, we need to assume half the league is committing fouls, or some all stars are committing fouls). So while there are flaws here, it is the closest we have to a proper answer.
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mod-nightblade-s-quick-guide-to-proficiency-cr-295316.html

Need a laugh and a break? Go here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mental-break-funny-videos-270269.html

Need a CR tutor? PM me!
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Jun 2016
Posts: 11
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jan 2019, 22:18
Here is my take on each option:

(A) Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls. This statement won't make the plan effective.

(B) League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls. To some extent yes this statement would make the plan effective. If the referees don't know how to recognize the flagrant fouls then the plans becomes ineffective.

(C) Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls. This won't make the official's plan effective.

(D) A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.
This is an evidence which also supports that when the given plan was implemented it reduced the flagrant fouls.
(E) Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team. This is an additional evidence which would make plan effective.

Can you please provide further explanation on how to select the correct answer among B,D and E because all three of them will contribute to the effectiveness of the official's plan. How to choose the best option here.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 08 Jul 2016
Posts: 69
CAT Tests
Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jan 2019, 00:28
anc wrote:
Here is my take on each option:

(A) Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls. This statement won't make the plan effective.

(B) League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls. To some extent yes this statement would make the plan effective. If the referees don't know how to recognize the flagrant fouls then the plans becomes ineffective.

(C) Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls. This won't make the official's plan effective.

(D) A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.
This is an evidence which also supports that when the given plan was implemented it reduced the flagrant fouls.
(E) Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team. This is an additional evidence which would make plan effective.

Can you please provide further explanation on how to select the correct answer among B,D and E because all three of them will contribute to the effectiveness of the official's plan. How to choose the best option here.


The conclusion can be re-stated as -- If officials implement the plan, then the number of flagrant fouls will reduce. In other words, the author is saying that if you implement this plan, then there is a guarantee that the number of fouls will reduce. Is this necessarily true? No. What if the players don't care about suspension. They may get a month of rest and after that they can get back to the field. No harm done. Choice E just says that they care about getting suspended and so they will not indulge in committing fouls.
Coming to wrong choices. B and D talk about the implementation of plan but do not indicate whether the fouls will reduce. B says that the plan will be implemented properly, but gives no indication of whether the fouls will reduce. D makes it seem that the number of fouls reduced in case of some other team. But this is not stated. It just says that the similar league has lower number of fouls than that of Youth Hockey League. Maybe this league had lower number of fouls throughout and the plan did not make any impact.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 04 Jun 2018
Posts: 157
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V36
CAT Tests
Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jan 2019, 03:16
bsd_lover wrote:
Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the league have become concerned with the number of flagrant fouls occurring during league games. This past season, the number of flagrant fouls was double the number from the season before. League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls.

Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the officials’ plan will be effective?


(A) Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls.

(B) League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls.

(C) Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls.

(D) A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.

(E) Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team.



Hi

Can someone please explain why option B is incorrect?


if the referee cannot tell if a foul is flagrant, then there is no incentive for the players NOT to committ flagrant fouls i.e the player will continue to commit fouls if referees are not trained. The rule that "you wont be on the all star team if you commit flagrant fouls" won't hold ANY weight if the judge (in this case the ref) cannot tell if the foul is flagrant or not.

Without the refs ability to judge, the argument falls in the water.

For example:
A recently passed law requires that Company A stop spilling large amounts of acid into the nearby lake. Inspectors will routinely come by the lake and check for the chemical that Company used to spill. If the inspectors find a a high level of acid, Company A will pay a substantial fee.

What good is the threat if the inspectors cannot tell how much acid is in the lake?


nightblade354
generis
egmat
GMATPrepNow
VeritasPrepBrian
daagh
Gladiator59

Regards
Nitesh
CR & LSAT Forum Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Studying for the LSAT -- Corruptus in Extremis
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 600
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Reviews Badge
Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jan 2019, 06:01
nitesh50,

(B) is wrong for the simple reason that we do not assume anything on the GMAT or LSAT. So what if they are coached to see the fouls better? Does this mean they call them more? NOPE. In fact, it could be argued that they would call them less. Your statements rests upon an assumption we cannot make.
_________________
D-Day: November 18th, 2017

My CR Guide: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mod-nightblade-s-quick-guide-to-proficiency-cr-295316.html

Need a laugh and a break? Go here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mental-break-funny-videos-270269.html

Need a CR tutor? PM me!
GMAT Club Bot
Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea   [#permalink] 17 Jan 2019, 06:01

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.