Several people have died while canoeing during high water on a nearby

Question

Several people have died while canoeing during high water on a nearby river in recent years. The local police have proposed a ban on canoeing when the river reaches flood stage. Opponents of the ban argue that the government should ban an activity only if it harms people other than those who willingly participate in the activity, and they, therefore, conclude that the proposed ban on high-water canoeing is unwarranted.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the opponents' conclusion?

A. Sailboats are not allowed on a nearby lake when winds exceed 50 miles per hour.

B. Several other local governments have imposed similar bans on other rivers.

C. Several police officers have been seriously injured while trying to rescue canoeists who were stranded on the Over while attempting to canoe during high water.

D. More canoeists drown while canoeing rivers at normal water levels than while canoeing rivers at high water levels.

E. Statistics provided by the U.S. National Park Service show that fewer people drown on rivers with high-water canoeing bans than on rivers without such bans.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Data Insights Butler

atilasol · Answer

C — because it shows the activity harms people who are not voluntary participants (rescuers).

findingmyself · Answer

To weaken the argument, we need: 
 1. A reason that will show that Ban will harm people other than those who participate in canoeing willingly

A. Sailboats are not allowed on a nearby lake when winds exceed 50 miles per hour.:  
  Irrelevant. What happens to sailboats in nearby lake doesnt weaken or either strengthen the argument. Avoid such nuetral statements

B. Several other local governments have imposed similar bans on other rivers. 
  Incorrect: Several other local governments can impose such a ban to achieve multiple objectives. Also what other governments does doesn't impact what is been done by this particular government  
 
 C. Several police officers have been seriously injured while trying to rescue canoeists who were stranded on the Over while attempting to canoe during high water. 
  Correct: Shows a direct impact on other that participants. Police officers are injured, which means harm is been done to people other than ones attempting canoe.
  
 D. More canoeists drown while canoeing rivers at normal water levels than while canoeing rivers at high water levels. 
  Incorrect: Canoeists drowning is willingly participating and hence not relevant 
 
 E. Statistics provided by the U.S. National Park Service show that fewer people drown on rivers with high-water canoeing bans than on rivers without such bans. 
  Incorrect: This doesn't say that the people who drown are canoeing while drowning or are swimming. It can be anything. We are talking about harm to other people.

VivekSri · Answer

Premise : The government should ban an activity only if it harms people other than those who willingly participate in the activity.

Conclusion : The proposed ban on high-water canoeing is unwarranted.

What to Weaken : The conclusion is based on the assumption that high-water canoeing does not harm people other than the participants. To weaken this argument, we must show that this assumption is false. We need to find an answer choice that demonstrates how high-water canoeing can harm people who are not the willing participants.

The correct answer, C, provides evidence that the activity does harm non-participants (police officers). By demonstrating this harm, it directly undermines the opponents' central premise and, therefore, weakens their conclusion that the ban is unwarranted.

CareerLauncherMBA · Answer

Let's understand: Several police officers have been seriously injured while trying to rescue canoeists stranded on the river during high water. Explanation Opponents argue that the ban is unnecessary because they believe only voluntary participants are at risk. They think only activities that harm non-participants should be banned. Option C shows that rescue personnel, who are not voluntary participants in dangerous canoeing, face serious harm during rescues. This directly challenges the opponents' argument, as it shows that the activity harms people other than those who choose to participate. This aligns with the opponents’ own standard for when a ban might be justified. Why Other Options Are Less Effective A and B describe other bans, not direct harm to non-participants. D highlights relative risk but does not specify who is harmed. E provides comparative statistics but fails to address harm to non-participants. Option C most directly weakens the opponents’ conclusion by showing that this activity poses risks to third parties. This justifies the proposed ban using the opponents’ own criteria. The correct answer is C. Want to give a Free GMAT Diagnostic Test: https://2ly.link/2Alsw

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE 
The stem contains the obvious key word “weakens,” but it also asks you to weaken the opponents’ conclusion in particular. Keep this information in mind—there may be more than one argument in the stimulus.

STEP 2: UNTANGLE THE STIMULUS 
The government shouldn’t ban an activity that poses no risk to people who don’t voluntarily participate. Therefore, the opponents argue, the government should not ban high-water canoeing.

STEP 3: PREDICT THE ANSWER 
To weaken the argument, you need an answer choice that explains why the opponents’ proposal should, on its own terms, be rejected. Here, the opponents assume that high-water canoeing does not harm anyone who does not willingly participate in the canoeing. To weaken the conclusion, look for an answer choice suggesting that canoeing during flood stage does in fact threaten people other than those who have chosen to canoe.

STEP 4: EVALUATE THE CHOICES 
(C) offers such a suggestion by stating that police officers, none of whom consented to expose themselves to the dangers of canoeing in high water, were in fact harmed as a result of such canoeing.  (C) is the correct answer.

(A) has no bearing on the argument; it isn’t clear how sailing on a lake during high wind is relevant to canoeing on a river during high water. This statement tells us nothing about whether high-water canoeing poses risks to non-canoers. And just because, as (B) says, other governments have also enacted the bans, that doesn’t mean that the bans are necessarily reasonable. The opponents might still have a valid argument. Therefore, (B) is also irrelevant. (D) offers an irrelevant comparison: that more canoeists drown while the river is at normal levels may simply be due to the fact that there are more canoeists at that time to begin with. That has no bearing on whether canoeing should be banned when water levels are high. And (E) might be tempting, but it doesn’t show that the opponents’ proposal to abolish the ban won’t work on its own terms. (E) doesn’t give an example of non-canoeists harmed by the canoeing.

Several people have died while canoeing during high water on a nearby

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Several people have died while canoeing during high water on a nearby

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards