GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 16 Jul 2018, 11:26

### 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

# S: Our nation is becoming too averse to risk. We boycott any

Author Message
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1783
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
S: Our nation is becoming too averse to risk. We boycott any [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 May 2009, 06:35
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:05) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

S: Our nation is becoming too averse to risk. We boycott any food reported to contain a toxic chemical, even though the risk, as a mathematical ratio, might be minimal. With this mentality, Columbus would never have sailed west.
T: A risk-taker in one context can be risk-averse in another: the same person can drive recklessly, but refuse to eat food not grown organically.
T responds to S by showing that
(A) a distinction should be made between avoidable and unavoidable risks
(B) aversion to risk cannot be reliably assessed without reference to context
(C) there is confusion about risk in the minds of many members of the public
(D) mathematical odds concerning risk give an unwarranted impression of precision
(E) risk cannot be defined in relation to perceived probable benefit

--== Message from GMAT Club Team ==--

This is not a quality discussion. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.

_________________
Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 233

### Show Tags

17 May 2009, 08:10
I choose A

S: Our nation is becoming too averse to risk. We boycott any food reported to contain a toxic chemical, even though the risk, as a mathematical ratio, might be minimal. With this mentality, Columbus would never have sailed west.
T: A risk-taker in one context can be risk-averse in another: the same person can drive recklessly, but refuse to eat food not grown organically.
T responds to S by showing that
(A) a distinction should be made between avoidable and unavoidable risks -->the best. Driving has several potential & unavoidable risk, but organicaless food is an avoidable risk that we can avert. He means in such case when we can see the risk, we should prevent such case. But in case when there so many unavoidable risks, it's not necessary to avoid such situation
(B) aversion to risk cannot be reliably assessed without reference to context -->I think this is a trap. context is mentioned, but no mentions made about what is the reliability of the risk in particular contexts
(C) there is confusion about risk in the minds of many members of the public -->no
(D) mathematical odds concerning risk give an unwarranted impression of precision -->no
(E) risk cannot be defined in relation to perceived probable benefit -->no mentions about benefit
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 590

### Show Tags

17 May 2009, 11:06
sondenso wrote:
S: Our nation is becoming too averse to risk. We boycott any food reported to contain a toxic chemical, even though the risk, as a mathematical ratio, might be minimal. With this mentality, Columbus would never have sailed west.
T: A risk-taker in one context can be risk-averse in another: the same person can drive recklessly, but refuse to eat food not grown organically.
T responds to S by showing that
(A) a distinction should be made between avoidable and unavoidable risks
-- T never talked about avoid / un-avoid.
(B) aversion to risk cannot be reliably assessed without reference to context -- IMO
--
(C) there is confusion about risk in the minds of many members of the public -- OOS
(D) mathematical odds concerning risk give an unwarranted impression of precision---OOS
(E) risk cannot be defined in relation to perceived probable benefit

---OOS
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Manager
Joined: 15 May 2009
Posts: 164

### Show Tags

17 May 2009, 12:58
sondenso wrote:
S: Our nation is becoming too averse to risk. We boycott any food reported to contain a toxic chemical, even though the risk, as a mathematical ratio, might be minimal. With this mentality, Columbus would never have sailed west.
T: A risk-taker in one context can be risk-averse in another: the same person can drive recklessly, but refuse to eat food not grown organically.
T responds to S by showing that
(A) a distinction should be made between avoidable and unavoidable risks
(B) aversion to risk cannot be reliably assessed without reference to context
(C) there is confusion about risk in the minds of many members of the public
(D) mathematical odds concerning risk give an unwarranted impression of precision
(E) risk cannot be defined in relation to perceived probable benefit

The word "context" makes me lean in favor of choice (B).

Both of T's examples are avoidable risks, so (A) is not the best description. (C) is possible logically, but was not articulated by T. (D) T never actively undermined the mathematics-based logic of S. (E) T never frames his argument in terms of cost-benefit analysis.

I think (B) is the most straightforward answer.
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1783
Schools: CBS, Kellogg

### Show Tags

18 May 2009, 02:32
The word "context" makes me lean in favor of choice (B).

Good tips

priyankur_saha@ml.com wrote:
(B) aversion to risk cannot be reliably assessed without reference to context -- IMO
!

Good point

OA is B
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 263

### Show Tags

18 May 2009, 08:00
T clearly starts by saying that risk has to be evaluated within its context. and gives an example to show his principle.
A careless driver can be reckless when it comes to driving -> not averse to risk
the same guy can be averse to eat organic food - >averse to risk.

from the above statements he clearly says that risk takers in one sense area averse to risk in another sense and appeals to S argument that the whole nation cannot be said averse to risk showing some are averse to eating food containing chemicals.

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 742

### Show Tags

18 May 2009, 14:31
clear B
Manager
Joined: 24 May 2009
Posts: 78

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2009, 04:30
B here too
Manager
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 234

### Show Tags

14 Jun 2009, 08:09
I'll choose B...This is the one that is relating risk to context...
_________________

Choose Life

Director
Joined: 05 Jun 2009
Posts: 680
WE 1: 7years (Financial Services - Consultant, BA)

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2009, 12:06
IMO B

---
(0:49)

--== Message from GMAT Club Team ==--

This is not a quality discussion. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.

_________________

Consider kudos for the good post ...
My debrief : http://gmatclub.com/forum/journey-670-to-720-q50-v36-long-85083.html

Re: Averse to risk   [#permalink] 16 Jun 2009, 12:06
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# S: Our nation is becoming too averse to risk. We boycott any

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.