It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 08:54

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 18:08
bsd_lover wrote:
OA is indeed E. I have the full OE - will post if enough people want to see it.

Can you? I'd like to read it...

Kudos to you too, you're posting some great material...

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2947

Kudos [?]: 674 [0], given: 210

Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 18:19
Hi Ryan - here it is :

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.

Kudos [?]: 674 [0], given: 210

Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 210

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 18:46
Thanks, mate.. Could you please tell me where you found this interesting question? The explanation for choice D & E are exactly what I had in mind when I answered too.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2947

Kudos [?]: 674 [0], given: 210

Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2008, 19:51
The source is MGMAT test 1. You can access these tests if you buy any of the excellent MGMAT series.

ps. I am not affiliated I only discovered these books recently and am loving them - although the Maths Fractions book , the CR book and the RC book are not that useful. All the rest of the books are incredibly helpful especially the sentence correction one.

Kudos [?]: 674 [0], given: 210

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 315

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 4

Location: Washington DC
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2008, 09:16
gixxer1000 wrote:
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.

Hey Gixxer,
Good post, +1 to you. Can you please explain in more details all these frameworks or send some link/material for these frameworks?

~marshpa.

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 4

Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 535

Kudos [?]: 187 [1], given: 0

Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2008, 11:29
1
KUDOS
marshpa wrote:

Hey Gixxer,
Good post, +1 to you. Can you please explain in more details all these frameworks or send some link/material for these frameworks?

~marshpa.

I use Manhattan GMAT prep books as well as the Veritas prep books as well. You can buy the Manhattan books pretty much anywhere and the Veritas books are available on their website. If your still studying after the end May then let me know because I'll have books to sell......hopefully .

Once you get the critical reasoning framework down it gets easier because you don't get distracted as much.

The argument is comprised of premises and conclusion. Premises are things that are stated and should be assumed as fact.

ex. If the there is a sentence that says "In Colorado there is no gravity." For the sake of the argument you have take this as a fact.

The conclusion is the point that the argument is trying to convince you of.

ex. "Therefore, in Colorado there is no gravity." This now becomes the conclusion because the word 'therefore' indicates that the author is trying to convince us that there is no gravity.

When you read through the passage you should immediate decide what are the premises and what is the conclusion. 70% of the problem is just getting the conclusion right. Once you have the conclusion you can then look at the question.

80% of the problems are either strengthen, weaken, or inference. If you start to get to the method, mimic and explain/resolve problems that means your doing good.

When you look at the question first you should determine if its a strengthen, weaken, inferrence, etc.

"Which one of the following if true, would most strengthen the argument?"

This is the easiest one. If they listed all the questions like this then it would get to easy so the change them to confuse us.

In this problem the question was:
"Which of the following statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the officials’ plan will be effective?"

This sounds a little bit more tricky. But if you had to seperate it into a category it would obviously be a strengthen question. So once you realize that you really don't need to know what the question asks us. You should immediatly change the question back to:

"Which one of the following if true, would most strengthen the argument?"

If you notice, most of the people who got the question wrong kept say that E strengthens the argument but it's not what the question is asking. If they would have been trying to just strengthen the argument they would have got the problem right.

So now you should go directly to the conclusion. In this case the conclusion was:

"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 you goal is to choose the answer choice that strengthens this conclusion. This is why getting the conclusion right is 70% of the problem.

The weaken probles are handled the exact same but just weaking instead of strengthen.

Assumption problems are a little different. You start out the same and identify the premise and conclusion. But in this case there is actually a premise that is missing. The answer choices represent the mssing premises.

Premise + __________ = Conclusion.

On inference question you just have to choose the answer that MUST be true. If you cant point to something to prove for a fact that its true then its not the right answer.

In the books you do many drill just ready questions by themselves to determine what kind of question it is and seperating premises from conlusions. Just by doing these two things you can usually get about 80% of them right without much effort.

One last thing. After you get the conclusion and determine what kind of question it is you should try and think what kind of information you would need. It keeps you from getting off track.

So for this problem:

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."

We determine the question is strengthen. So before we even look at the answer choices we think what would strength the position that implementing suspensions would decrease flagrant fouls. We are looking for a reason that shows why suspensions decrease flagrant fouls.

Kudos [?]: 187 [1], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 147

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 41

Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2013, 08:05
Hi,

Why not B???
What if fouls were there but were not reported due to referee's untrained skills.

Thanks,
Jai
_________________

MODULUS Concept ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 41

Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 156

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 559

Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2013, 07:23
ygdrasil24 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.

A. Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls.- Out Of Scope... Incorrect
B. League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls.- This is not an evidence.. It just says that they can recognize the fouls... But it doesnt mention if the plan suspension plan will be effective.. Incorrect
C. Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls. .. Incorrect.. Parents support doesnt provide any evidence regarding the effectiveness of plan
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. Incorrect... This doesnt prove that its because of the suspension that this league has low incidence of 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. Correct..... Since they want to be selected for all star team so they will make sure that they dont get suspended... thus the plan will be successful.

_________________

Preparing for another shot...

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 559

Manager
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 124

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 45

Location: United States
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Operations
Schools: ISB '15
GMAT 1: 590 Q48 V23
GPA: 3.9
WE: Operations (Manufacturing)
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2013, 07:55
akankshasoneja wrote:
ygdrasil24 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.

A. Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls.- Out Of Scope... Incorrect
B. League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls.- This is not an evidence.. It just says that they can recognize the fouls... But it doesnt mention if the plan suspension plan will be effective.. Incorrect
C. Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls. .. Incorrect.. Parents support doesnt provide any evidence regarding the effectiveness of plan
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. Incorrect... This doesnt prove that its because of the suspension that this league has low incidence of 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. Correct..... Since they want to be selected for all star team so they will make sure that they dont get suspended... thus the plan will be successful.

In E, lets say a team is of 10 players, and out of 10 about 9 players have incentive to go for All-Star team. If 1 one of the player is not interested in All-Star, why would he be deterred by this ? He can continue fouling....

In D, I agree not very close to argument and does not explain the implication of any deterrence.

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 45

Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2012
Posts: 156

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 559

Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2013, 08:33
ygdrasil24 wrote:
akankshasoneja wrote:
ygdrasil24 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.

A. Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls.- Out Of Scope... Incorrect
B. League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls.- This is not an evidence.. It just says that they can recognize the fouls... But it doesnt mention if the plan suspension plan will be effective.. Incorrect
C. Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls. .. Incorrect.. Parents support doesnt provide any evidence regarding the effectiveness of plan
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. Incorrect... This doesnt prove that its because of the suspension that this league has low incidence of 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. Correct..... Since they want to be selected for all star team so they will make sure that they dont get suspended... thus the plan will be successful.

In E, lets say a team is of 10 players, and out of 10 about 9 players have incentive to go for All-Star team. If 1 one of the player is not interested in All-Star, why would he be deterred by this ? He can continue fouling....

In D, I agree not very close to argument and does not explain the implication of any deterrence.

Yes that one person may continue fouling... but in the argument its mentioned"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 isnt the plan reducing the no of fouls?... Now instead of ten only one person will continue fouling...

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 559

Current Student
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 956

Kudos [?]: 1899 [0], given: 229

Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2014, 13:49
I think E cant be the OA.

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.

What if less then 49% players not interested to be selected for the All-Star team were involve in all Flagrant fouls, then definitely even suspension threat wont discourage them from committing foul.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Kudos [?]: 1899 [0], given: 229

Intern
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 36

Kudos [?]: 25 [1], given: 39

Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jun 2016, 17:45
1
KUDOS
Quiet confusing between D and E.

officials need to decide if they want to put some rule. and they notice a rule worked in one league will workout for this league too. that is rather seems a speculation only. what if people won't follow as they should.

while E is talking about motivation for players. if they wanted to be selected, they will be more careful to follow the rule.

Let say E.
_________________

Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Kudos [?]: 25 [1], given: 39

Director
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 690

Kudos [?]: 228 [0], given: 855

Location: United States
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2017, 03:30
Official's Plan :-
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.
Evidence :
(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.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Kudos [?]: 228 [0], given: 855

Manager
Joined: 07 Aug 2016
Posts: 98

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 72

Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Operations
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 May 2017, 12:47
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.

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 72

Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2016
Posts: 90

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 40

GMAT 1: 690 Q43 V41
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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?

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 40

Board of Directors
Status: Aiming MBA
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 2762

Kudos [?]: 916 [1], given: 67

Location: India
GPA: 3.65
WE: Information Technology (Health Care)
Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2017, 11:16
1
KUDOS
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.

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.
_________________

How I improved from V21 to V40! ?

Kudos [?]: 916 [1], given: 67

Re: Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the lea   [#permalink] 09 Jul 2017, 11:16

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 36 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by