It is currently 24 Feb 2018, 11:57

### 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

# Recent research shows that training

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jan 2015
Posts: 322
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GPA: 3.35
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Recent research shows that training [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2018, 02:50
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

51% (01:07) correct 49% (01:15) wrong based on 129 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Recent research shows that training programs that include emphases on flexibility, highlighting activities such as yoga and pilates, are significantly more effective at preventing injury in athletes than are training programs that solely focus on strength and speed. The Bournemouth Football Club suffered fewer injuries than the Haleford Football Club this past season, so it can be concluded that Bournemouth's training program featured more flexibility activities than did the program at Haleford.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism because it:

A)generalizes from too few data points.
B)uses its own conclusion as one of its major premises.
C)assumes that the consequence of one set of circumstances would not be produced by another.
D)fails to consult alternative research studies.
E)does not distinguish between incidence of injury and degree of injury.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
Offical Solution:
When you look at how this argument is built, recognize a few major points:

1) The only comparison drawn between methods of injury prevention pits "flexibility training" against "strength and speed training." You don't at all know that flexibility training is the best of all possible injury prevention techniques (rest? nutrition? hydration?). What if Bournemouth just did a better job of prioritizing the other, unnamed injury prevention techniques, but didn't do as much flexibility training as Haleford?

2) The amount of flexibility training is not part of the comparison - the comparison just pits "programs that include flexibility training" (whether it's a small amount of flexibility training or a large amount) against "programs that solely focus on strength and speed." The given premise does not allow for a "more vs. less" flexibility training conclusion, as it is just "has" vs. "does not have" data.

3) You don't know whether Haleford has more players, or played more games - you don't know whether the real number data (more vs. fewer injuries) is balanced enough to draw a conclusoin.

As you go to the answer choices, you'll see that choice C summarizes the flaw outlined in 1) above - the conclusion doesn't allow for other factors to be the drivers behind the injury difference. And no choices summarize 2) or 3), so C must be correct. Among the incorrect choices:

A points out the wrong data flaw - there is a flaw in using real numbers of injuries without a per-capita or percentage direct comparison, but the problem isn't necessarily "too few data points."

B is not the case, as the conclusion is not one of the premises - it stands alone as its own new piece of information.

D is not necessarily a flaw, as there is no reason to suspect that the studies consulted are insufficient to establish the notion that flexibility can help prevent injuries.

And E is not a flaw here as the premises and conclusion are all consistent in using the number/incidence of injuries (did an injury occur). The argument as constructed has no need to focus on severity of injury.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

आत्मनॊ मोक्षार्थम् जगद्धिताय च

Resource: GMATPrep RCs With Solution

Intern
Joined: 13 Jan 2018
Posts: 6
Re: Recent research shows that training [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2018, 06:06
Why A is incorrect?

The conclusion has been drawn using only one example and then generalised
Intern
Joined: 22 Mar 2017
Posts: 3
Re: Recent research shows that training [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2018, 18:45
harsh2112 wrote:
Why A is incorrect?

The conclusion has been drawn using only one example and then generalised

It is vulnerable to criticism not because the argument provides one example
But because the author does not consider other factors that can result in the same situation
Intern
Joined: 04 Oct 2017
Posts: 30
Re: Recent research shows that training [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jan 2018, 16:57
gmatria760 wrote:
harsh2112 wrote:
Why A is incorrect?

The conclusion has been drawn using only one example and then generalised

It is vulnerable to criticism not because the argument provides one example
But because the author does not consider other factors that can result in the same situation

I cannot understand the OA. Can someone explain??
Re: Recent research shows that training   [#permalink] 28 Jan 2018, 16:57
Display posts from previous: Sort by