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

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.

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.

[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

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.

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.

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.

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

Other question (correct answer):


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):


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.

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!

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

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.

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

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.

One other thing I'd add to what nightblade said is that "have been trained" in choice B isn't the same thing as "are able." I'd be extra cautious of that if this were an assumption question, where you might have your exact same question ("hey, but do we even know that referees know how to call these flagrant fouls?"). I'd say that the plan assumes that referees are able to recognize and call these fouls, but it doesn't assume that they have been trained to do so (the definitions could be so clear that it's obvious to recognize them, or the hiring process could be to hire referees who already possess that knowledge). So that's one thing I think you can learn a lot from on this question...that precision in language that separates necessary premises from frivolous ones.

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. -> Still who does flagrant fouls doesn't get deterrent. Incorrect.

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

(C) Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls. -> Parents support won't deter players. Incorrect.

(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. -> Irrelevant.

(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. -> So, the big motivation will be killed, if player suspended for flagrant fouls.

So, I think E.