It is currently 24 Nov 2017, 00:51

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

S92-07

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 42355

Kudos [?]: 133182 [1], given: 12439

S92-07 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2014, 01:46
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

57% (01:06) correct 43% (01:05) wrong based on 141 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

New to the Math Forum?
Please read this: Ultimate GMAT Quantitative Megathread | All You Need for Quant | PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW: 12 Rules for Posting!!!

Resources:
GMAT Math Book | Triangles | Polygons | Coordinate Geometry | Factorials | Circles | Number Theory | Remainders; 8. Overlapping Sets | PDF of Math Book; 10. Remainders | GMAT Prep Software Analysis | SEVEN SAMURAI OF 2012 (BEST DISCUSSIONS) | Tricky questions from previous years.

Collection of Questions:
PS: 1. Tough and Tricky questions; 2. Hard questions; 3. Hard questions part 2; 4. Standard deviation; 5. Tough Problem Solving Questions With Solutions; 6. Probability and Combinations Questions With Solutions; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 12 Easy Pieces (or not?); 9 Bakers' Dozen; 10 Algebra set. ,11 Mixed Questions, 12 Fresh Meat

DS: 1. DS tough questions; 2. DS tough questions part 2; 3. DS tough questions part 3; 4. DS Standard deviation; 5. Inequalities; 6. 700+ GMAT Data Sufficiency Questions With Explanations; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 The Discreet Charm of the DS; 9 Devil's Dozen!!!; 10 Number Properties set., 11 New DS set.


What are GMAT Club Tests?
Extra-hard Quant Tests with Brilliant Analytics

Kudos [?]: 133182 [1], given: 12439

Expert Post
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 42355

Kudos [?]: 133182 [0], given: 12439

Re S92-07 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Sep 2014, 01:46
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
_________________

New to the Math Forum?
Please read this: Ultimate GMAT Quantitative Megathread | All You Need for Quant | PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW: 12 Rules for Posting!!!

Resources:
GMAT Math Book | Triangles | Polygons | Coordinate Geometry | Factorials | Circles | Number Theory | Remainders; 8. Overlapping Sets | PDF of Math Book; 10. Remainders | GMAT Prep Software Analysis | SEVEN SAMURAI OF 2012 (BEST DISCUSSIONS) | Tricky questions from previous years.

Collection of Questions:
PS: 1. Tough and Tricky questions; 2. Hard questions; 3. Hard questions part 2; 4. Standard deviation; 5. Tough Problem Solving Questions With Solutions; 6. Probability and Combinations Questions With Solutions; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 12 Easy Pieces (or not?); 9 Bakers' Dozen; 10 Algebra set. ,11 Mixed Questions, 12 Fresh Meat

DS: 1. DS tough questions; 2. DS tough questions part 2; 3. DS tough questions part 3; 4. DS Standard deviation; 5. Inequalities; 6. 700+ GMAT Data Sufficiency Questions With Explanations; 7 Tough and tricky exponents and roots questions; 8 The Discreet Charm of the DS; 9 Devil's Dozen!!!; 10 Number Properties set., 11 New DS set.


What are GMAT Club Tests?
Extra-hard Quant Tests with Brilliant Analytics

Kudos [?]: 133182 [0], given: 12439

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Jul 2013
Posts: 45

Kudos [?]: 41 [1], given: 37

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: S92-07 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Oct 2015, 11:40
1
This post received
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


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.

Kudos [?]: 41 [1], given: 37

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2016
Posts: 76

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 163

Re: S92-07 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jul 2016, 23:30
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. 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



Hey!
Thank you for this great explanation. however i agree with rajashreerajashree
Can there be any other reason that will make D wrong? Destabilization is itself a negative word indicating accidents and injuries. Isn't it?
Thanks

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 163

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Sep 2017
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: S92-07 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2017, 09:17
The problem can transform like this "(1) > (2)"
In order to weaken this, we gotta prove "(1) <= (2)"

Answer A. simply tells us that "(2) is high!"
D. makes it clear that "(1) is actually < (2)"

So, D. is definitely a better choice than A.

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 06 Jul 2017
Posts: 10

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 4

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.25
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
Re: S92-07 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Sep 2017, 00:27
rajarshee wrote:
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


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.

The conclusion drawn above says that manual detonation should be avoided to reduce the number of injuries. Option D only weakens a part of this conclusion. It gives you a downside of not using the manual method to detonate land mines. It does not however weaken the second part of the conclusion that is related to the injuries.

Answer A

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 4

Re: S92-07   [#permalink] 21 Sep 2017, 00:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by

S92-07

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderators: chetan2u, Bunuel



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.