Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
Events & Promotions
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Jun 0608:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jun 0712:00 PM PDT
-01:00 PM PDT
In this GMAT experience talk show, we talk to Tavishi, a young MBA aspirant from India who recently scored 725 in her latest GMAT Focus exam. It’s a 99.9 percentile score on the new GMAT Focus edition and she achieved this feat in her first GMAT attempt.
Jun 0805:30 AM PDT
-07:30 AM PDT
The Focus Edition allows barely 2 minutes per question. Hence, rereading portions of passages is not an option. Learn our Involved and Evolved reading strategy, the most efficacious solution to time saving on RC and score high on GMAT Verbal!
Jun 0811:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Jun 0905:30 AM PDT
-07:30 AM PDT
Ready to conquer GMAT's toughest Data Insights questions? Unlock the secrets of Graphical Interpretation & Two-Part Analysis with our expert-led webinar! Limited seats!- Jun 09
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to evaluate your current skill level, learn process skills, and solve through tough Arithmetic questions - Jun 11
05:40 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight fair, the biggest MBA fair of the year. You will have a chance to hear Admissions directors from almost every Top 20 program speak, network with peers, and more. 
Jun 1111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Magoosh students get into top business schools like MIT Sloan, HBS, Stanford GSB, Wharton and more! See why over 6 million students trust us for exam prep.
S92-07
[#permalink]
16 Sep 2014, 01:46
16 Sep 2014, 01:46
1
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Show timer
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
58% (01:13) correct
42%
(01:10)
wrong
based on 198
sessions
Using armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines entails an unavoidable risk of injury or fatality, but disarming and removing land mines manually currently entails an even greater such risk to those who remove land mines per mine removed. Therefore, in order to reduce the risk of injury or fatality without decelerating the effort to remove buried land mines, we must increase the use of armored vehicles and disarm fewer land mines by hand.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?
A. Manual mine disarmers can be quickly trained in methods that significantly decrease their risk of injury or fatality.
B. Injuries caused by manual disarmament tend to be far more serious than injuries caused by armored vehicle detonations.
C. The delivery of armored vehicles with which to detonate buried land mines can be organized easily by military field operatives.
D. Land mines detonated by armored vehicles destabilize the land surrounding the mine, while land mines that are successfully disarmed manually cause no such damage.
E. Hiring and training those who remove mines by hand is far less costly than is importing heavy armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?
A. Manual mine disarmers can be quickly trained in methods that significantly decrease their risk of injury or fatality.
B. Injuries caused by manual disarmament tend to be far more serious than injuries caused by armored vehicle detonations.
C. The delivery of armored vehicles with which to detonate buried land mines can be organized easily by military field operatives.
D. Land mines detonated by armored vehicles destabilize the land surrounding the mine, while land mines that are successfully disarmed manually cause no such damage.
E. Hiring and training those who remove mines by hand is far less costly than is importing heavy armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines.
Re S92-07
[#permalink]
16 Sep 2014, 01:46
16 Sep 2014, 01:46
Expert Reply
Official Solution:
Using armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines entails an unavoidable risk of injury or fatality, but disarming and removing land mines manually currently entails an even greater such risk to those who remove land mines per mine removed. Therefore, in order to reduce the risk of injury or fatality without decelerating the effort to remove buried land mines, we must increase the use of armored vehicles and disarm fewer land mines by hand.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?
A. Manual mine disarmers can be quickly trained in methods that significantly decrease their risk of injury or fatality.
B. Injuries caused by manual disarmament tend to be far more serious than injuries caused by armored vehicle detonations.
C. The delivery of armored vehicles with which to detonate buried land mines can be organized easily by military field operatives.
D. Land mines detonated by armored vehicles destabilize the land surrounding the mine, while land mines that are successfully disarmed manually cause no such damage.
E. Hiring and training those who remove mines by hand is far less costly than is importing heavy armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines.
There are two possible methods by which to remove buried land mines; detonating them with armored vehicles or disarming them by hand. We are told that the risk is higher with the manual method, and that, therefore, this method is preferred in terms of risk reduction. To weaken this argument, a statement must add an additional element to the comparison between the two methods that shows manual disarmament to be less risky than previously thought.
Choice A states that manual disarmers can be trained to reduce their risk of injury or fatality. This choice undermines the argument's conclusion that armored vehicles are clearly the safer method; if manual disarmers were better trained, this choice implies, then manual disarmament may be as safe as armored detonation.
Choice B refers to the seriousness of injuries instigated by the two different methods. The risk of injury or fatality does not necessarily correlate to the serious of such injuries. Furthermore, this choice states that manual disarmament causes more serious injuries, which does not weaken the claim that this method should be used less.
Choice C states that it may be easy to organize an effort to step up armored vehicle disarmament. This choice can only strengthen the argument, by ensuring that the strategy recommended is feasible.
Choice D refers to land destabilization. The argument is based on the risk of injury and there is nothing given to relate land destabilization to the risk of injury. So, this choice does not affect the argument.
Choice E states that one method is less costly than the other. Cost plays no role in this argument, so this statement cannot weaken the argument's claim.
Answer: A
Using armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines entails an unavoidable risk of injury or fatality, but disarming and removing land mines manually currently entails an even greater such risk to those who remove land mines per mine removed. Therefore, in order to reduce the risk of injury or fatality without decelerating the effort to remove buried land mines, we must increase the use of armored vehicles and disarm fewer land mines by hand.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?
A. Manual mine disarmers can be quickly trained in methods that significantly decrease their risk of injury or fatality.
B. Injuries caused by manual disarmament tend to be far more serious than injuries caused by armored vehicle detonations.
C. The delivery of armored vehicles with which to detonate buried land mines can be organized easily by military field operatives.
D. Land mines detonated by armored vehicles destabilize the land surrounding the mine, while land mines that are successfully disarmed manually cause no such damage.
E. Hiring and training those who remove mines by hand is far less costly than is importing heavy armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines.
There are two possible methods by which to remove buried land mines; detonating them with armored vehicles or disarming them by hand. We are told that the risk is higher with the manual method, and that, therefore, this method is preferred in terms of risk reduction. To weaken this argument, a statement must add an additional element to the comparison between the two methods that shows manual disarmament to be less risky than previously thought.
Choice A states that manual disarmers can be trained to reduce their risk of injury or fatality. This choice undermines the argument's conclusion that armored vehicles are clearly the safer method; if manual disarmers were better trained, this choice implies, then manual disarmament may be as safe as armored detonation.
Choice B refers to the seriousness of injuries instigated by the two different methods. The risk of injury or fatality does not necessarily correlate to the serious of such injuries. Furthermore, this choice states that manual disarmament causes more serious injuries, which does not weaken the claim that this method should be used less.
Choice C states that it may be easy to organize an effort to step up armored vehicle disarmament. This choice can only strengthen the argument, by ensuring that the strategy recommended is feasible.
Choice D refers to land destabilization. The argument is based on the risk of injury and there is nothing given to relate land destabilization to the risk of injury. So, this choice does not affect the argument.
Choice E states that one method is less costly than the other. Cost plays no role in this argument, so this statement cannot weaken the argument's claim.
Answer: A
Re: S92-07
[#permalink]
30 Oct 2015, 11:40
30 Oct 2015, 11:40
1
Kudos
Bunuel wrote:
Official Solution:
Using armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines entails an unavoidable risk of injury or fatality, but disarming and removing land mines manually currently entails an even greater such risk to those who remove land mines per mine removed. Therefore, in order to reduce the risk of injury or fatality without decelerating the effort to remove buried land mines, we must increase the use of armored vehicles and disarm fewer land mines by hand.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?
A. Manual mine disarmers can be quickly trained in methods that significantly decrease their risk of injury or fatality.
B. Injuries caused by manual disarmament tend to be far more serious than injuries caused by armored vehicle detonations.
C. The delivery of armored vehicles with which to detonate buried land mines can be organized easily by military field operatives.
D. Land mines detonated by armored vehicles destabilize the land surrounding the mine, while land mines that are successfully disarmed manually cause no such damage.
E. Hiring and training those who remove mines by hand is far less costly than is importing heavy armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines.
There are two possible methods by which to remove buried land mines; detonating them with armored vehicles or disarming them by hand. We are told that the risk is higher with the manual method, and that, therefore, this method is preferred in terms of risk reduction. To weaken this argument, a statement must add an additional element to the comparison between the two methods that shows manual disarmament to be less risky than previously thought.
Choice A states that manual disarmers can be trained to reduce their risk of injury or fatality. This choice undermines the argument's conclusion that armored vehicles are clearly the safer method; if manual disarmers were better trained, this choice implies, then manual disarmament may be as safe as armored detonation.
Choice B refers to the seriousness of injuries instigated by the two different methods. The risk of injury or fatality does not necessarily correlate to the serious of such injuries. Furthermore, this choice states that manual disarmament causes more serious injuries, which does not weaken the claim that this method should be used less.
Choice C states that it may be easy to organize an effort to step up armored vehicle disarmament. This choice can only strengthen the argument, by ensuring that the strategy recommended is feasible.
Choice D refers to land destabilization. Without knowing the relationship between land destabilization and the risk of injury, this choice does not affect the argument.
Choice E states that one method is less costly than the other. Cost plays no role in this argument, so this statement cannot weaken the argument's claim.
Answer: A
Using armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines entails an unavoidable risk of injury or fatality, but disarming and removing land mines manually currently entails an even greater such risk to those who remove land mines per mine removed. Therefore, in order to reduce the risk of injury or fatality without decelerating the effort to remove buried land mines, we must increase the use of armored vehicles and disarm fewer land mines by hand.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?
A. Manual mine disarmers can be quickly trained in methods that significantly decrease their risk of injury or fatality.
B. Injuries caused by manual disarmament tend to be far more serious than injuries caused by armored vehicle detonations.
C. The delivery of armored vehicles with which to detonate buried land mines can be organized easily by military field operatives.
D. Land mines detonated by armored vehicles destabilize the land surrounding the mine, while land mines that are successfully disarmed manually cause no such damage.
E. Hiring and training those who remove mines by hand is far less costly than is importing heavy armored vehicles to detonate buried land mines.
There are two possible methods by which to remove buried land mines; detonating them with armored vehicles or disarming them by hand. We are told that the risk is higher with the manual method, and that, therefore, this method is preferred in terms of risk reduction. To weaken this argument, a statement must add an additional element to the comparison between the two methods that shows manual disarmament to be less risky than previously thought.
Choice A states that manual disarmers can be trained to reduce their risk of injury or fatality. This choice undermines the argument's conclusion that armored vehicles are clearly the safer method; if manual disarmers were better trained, this choice implies, then manual disarmament may be as safe as armored detonation.
Choice B refers to the seriousness of injuries instigated by the two different methods. The risk of injury or fatality does not necessarily correlate to the serious of such injuries. Furthermore, this choice states that manual disarmament causes more serious injuries, which does not weaken the claim that this method should be used less.
Choice C states that it may be easy to organize an effort to step up armored vehicle disarmament. This choice can only strengthen the argument, by ensuring that the strategy recommended is feasible.
Choice D refers to land destabilization. Without knowing the relationship between land destabilization and the risk of injury, this choice does not affect the argument.
Choice E states that one method is less costly than the other. Cost plays no role in this argument, so this statement cannot weaken the argument's claim.
Answer: A
Tell me where I am going wrong:
GMAT assumes some common sense and understanding of the world and based on that it seems as if the land surrounding a mine is destabilized, that can trigger any other mines close by. After all land mines work on the philosophy of pressure destabilization/ change. This makes option D very very hard to ignore and some might say better than option A.
