NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 23:15 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 23:15
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
ezinis
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 396 [7]
Given Kudos: 18
Location: Montreal
Concentration: Finance
Schools:Harvard, Yale, HEC
Send PM
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 09 Jun 2020, 03:44
2
Kudos
5
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

12% (01:58) correct 88% (01:40) wrong based on 194 sessions
Hide Show 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.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C

Originally posted by ezinis on 12 Nov 2009, 07:23.
Last edited by Sajjad1994 on 09 Jun 2020, 03:44, edited 1 time in total.
Updated OA and formatted
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
ezinis
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 396 [1]
Given Kudos: 18
Location: Montreal
Concentration: Finance
Schools:Harvard, Yale, HEC
Send PM
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   12 Nov 2009, 14:36
1
Kudos
Official Answer:

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.
General Discussion
User avatar
BarneyStinson
Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 219
Own Kudos [?]: 438 [1]
Given Kudos: 22
Concentration: World Domination, Finance, Political Corporatization, Marketing, Strategy
Schools:LBS, INSEAD, IMD, ISB - Anything with just 1 yr program.
 Q47  V32
Send PM
Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   12 Nov 2009, 08:52
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.

My answer would be D.
This question should fall under the 600 to 650 category.
avatar
Shelen
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 165 [1]
Given Kudos: 4
Location: Russia
Concentration: General Management
Schools:IESE, SDA Bocconi
 Q44  V33
Send PM
Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   12 Nov 2009, 13:01
1
Kudos
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?
avatar
Shelen
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 165 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Location: Russia
Concentration: General Management
Schools:IESE, SDA Bocconi
 Q44  V33
Send PM
Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   12 Nov 2009, 23:26
ezinis wrote:
Official Answer:

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...
avatar
dare2drm
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   13 Nov 2009, 05:02
I still follow A. Not convinced with C.
User avatar
jade3
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 97
Own Kudos [?]: 800 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   13 Nov 2009, 09:07
1
Kudos
IMO the answer is C

(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)
User avatar
ezinis
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 396 [0]
Given Kudos: 18
Location: Montreal
Concentration: Finance
Schools:Harvard, Yale, HEC
Send PM
Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   13 Nov 2009, 12:57
do you think this kind of questions will appear in the actual GMAT? I am so frustrated.
User avatar
jade3
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 97
Own Kudos [?]: 800 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   13 Nov 2009, 20:34
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.
User avatar
gurpreet07
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 224
Own Kudos [?]: 1691 [1]
Given Kudos: 14
Send PM
Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   14 Nov 2009, 02:10
1
Kudos
jade3 wrote:
IMO the answer is C

(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
User avatar
ezinis
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2009
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 396 [0]
Given Kudos: 18
Location: Montreal
Concentration: Finance
Schools:Harvard, Yale, HEC
Send PM
Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   14 Nov 2009, 07:46
jade3 wrote:
IMO the answer is C

(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.
User avatar
b2bt
Manager
Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Posts: 204
Own Kudos [?]: 557 [0]
Given Kudos: 242
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: Weatherhead '18 (A$) Northeastern '18 (WL)
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 680 Q48 V34
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   20 Feb 2014, 21:26
jade3 wrote:
IMO the answer is C

(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 :P
User avatar
gmatprav
Manager
Manager
Joined: 25 Oct 2013
Posts: 115
Own Kudos [?]: 166 [1]
Given Kudos: 55
Send PM
Re: Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   01 Mar 2014, 07:34
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.

jade3 wrote:
IMO the answer is C

(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)

User avatar
B
YashYashkratos
Manager
Manager
Joined: 27 Nov 2022
Posts: 84
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 11
Send PM
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink] New post   26 Oct 2023, 20:14
C) clearly the correct answer might seem irrelevant at first but if you think about it> the option takes out a major weakener for the argument that life guard IS NEEDED that the visitors were the same which indirectly strengthens the conclusion that life is indeed needed and argument against it in the question is Weakened. Other options either strengthen or provide incomplete conclusions. Don't understand the debate. Will be happy to clarify any doubts regarding any individual option.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Last year, two drownings occurred at Lake Serene, so this year the lak [#permalink]
26 Oct 2023, 20:14
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions