Ski Resort Board Member: The free skier safety courses that have been

Question

Ski Resort Board Member: The free skier safety courses that have been offered by the resort for the past ten years must be improved or eliminated. The courses, which are designed to encourage safe skiing and reduce the risk of collisions and injuries, have always been free, highly publicized, and offered at various times throughout the week to accommodate a wide variety of scheduling needs. Despite this admirable initiative, a study shows that, during the past 10 years, skiers who completed the course were just as likely to be involved in a collision as skiers who did not complete the course. The resort wastes thousands of dollars each week running these ineffective courses.
 
Which of the following is an assumption on which the board member's argument depends?

(A) The skier safety courses could be improved without substantially increasing the program's budget.

(B) There are other methods besides offering skier safety courses that are more effective in reducing the risk of skier collisions and injuries.

(C) Skiers who completed the course are no less likely to be involved in a collision than they would have been if they had not completed the course.

(D) There is no way to reduce the current costs of running the mountain safety courses.

(E) Even though the courses are free, most skiers would prefer not to spend their time attending a safety course.

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 52: Critical Reasoning 
 Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day:   E-mail  |  RSS 
 For All QOTD Questions  Click Here

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Here's another assumption question, so let's start by identifying the conclusion, exactly in the author's own words: "The free skier safety courses that have been offered by the resort for the past ten years must be improved or eliminated."

At first glance, the last sentence might seem like the conclusion. After all, it's at the end of the passage and sure  looks  like a conclusion. In these situations, it can be helpful to ask yourself, "What is the author trying to do with this passage?" Does the author simply want to reader to think that resort wastes thousands of dollars each week running these ineffective courses? Or does the author want the reader to believe that the courses should be improved or eliminated?

Notice that the last sentence SUPPORTS the first sentence: The resort wastes thousands of dollars running these ineffective courses; THEREFORE, the courses should be improved or eliminated. That makes more sense than: The courses should be improved or eliminated; THEREFORE, the resort wastes thousands of dollars running the courses. The first sentence does not SUPPORT the last sentence.

What other evidence is presented to support the conclusion?

First, we are given some background information describing the courses: They "are designed to encourage safe skiing and reduce the risk of collisions and injuries." 
 The courses "have always been free, highly publicized, and offered at various times throughout the week to accommodate a wide variety of scheduling needs." This evidence suggests that it is  unlikely  that skiers did not attend the courses because the skiers did not want to pay for the courses, because the skiers did not know about the courses, or because the skiers had scheduling conflicts. 
 "Skiers who completed the course were just as likely to be involved in a collision as skiers who did not complete the course." - this seems to suggest that the courses are not effective. 
 "The resort wastes thousands of dollars each week running these ineffective courses." - If the courses are ineffective, as suggested by the previous sentence, then that money would surely be a waste. Therefore, the courses should be improved or eliminated.

Now that we understand the structure of the author's argument, which of the answer choices is an assumption on which the argument depends?

The author simply concludes that the courses must be improved or eliminated, without suggesting how the courses could be improved or how the resort would pay for such improvements. (A) can be eliminated.

It's possible that there is NO other method that is more effective in reducing the risk of skier collisions and injuries than the courses that are currently offered. If those courses are the MOST effective method and they are not effective, then this further supports the author's conclusion that the courses must be improved or eliminated. (B) is not a necessary assumption and can be eliminated.

The following sentence seemed to suggest that the courses are ineffective: "Skiers who completed the course (Group A) were just as likely to be involved in a collision as skiers who did not complete the course (Group B)." But perhaps the skiers who did complete the course (Group A) would have been MORE likely to be involved in a collision if they had not taken the courses. In other words, without the course, skiers in Group A might have been MORE likely to be involved in a collision than skiers in Group B. However, thanks to the courses, Group A skiers are now only just as likely to be involved in a collision as Group B skiers. This is evidence that the courses ARE effective and disrupts the author's logic. Choice (C) represents a necessary assumption, so let's keep it.

Even if the costs were reduced, the author's argument would still hold. If the courses do not make any difference to skier safety, why should the resort spend ANY money on them? (D) is not a necessary assumption and can be eliminated.

This assumption would actually hurt the author's argument. If this statement is true, it would be evidence that skiers are simply not attending the courses. In that case, the author's evidence would be irrelevant and we wouldn't know whether the courses are effective. Perhaps the resort simply needs to offer incentives to encourage skiers to attend the courses. (E) can be eliminated.

(C) is the best choice.

gmatexam439 · Answer

Ski Resort Board Member: The free skier safety courses that have been offered by the resort for the past ten years must be improved or eliminated. The courses, which are designed to encourage safe skiing and reduce the risk of collisions and injuries, have always been free, highly publicised, and offered at various times throughout the week to accommodate a wide variety of scheduling needs. Despite this admirable initiative, a study shows that, during the past 10 years, skiers who completed the course were just as likely to be involved in a collision as skiers who did not complete the course. The resort wastes thousands of dollars each week running these ineffective courses.

The argument can be broken down as follows:
 Premise: (Background information)  - The courses, which are designed to encourage safe skiing and reduce the risk of collisions and injuries, have always been free, highly publicised, and offered at various times throughout the week to accommodate a wide variety of scheduling needs.
 Premise 1: (Supporting conclusion)  - Despite this admirable initiative, a study shows that, during the past 10 years, skiers who completed the course were just as likely to be involved in a collision as skiers who did not complete the course. 
 Premise 2: (Supporting conclusion)  - The resort wastes thousands of dollars each week running these ineffective courses. 
 Conclusion: The free skier safety courses that have been offered by the resort for the past ten years must be improved or eliminated. 
 
Which of the following is an assumption on which the board member's argument depends?
 
(A) The skier safety courses could be improved without substantially increasing the program's budget. - Irrelevant. The conclusion is that the course should either be suspended or improved. The premise doesn't say that the course can't be improved. This is just a stated fact. 
(B) There are other methods besides offering skier safety courses that are more effective in reducing the risk of skier collisions and injuries. - Irrelevant. The premise doesn't say that there aren't any other more safer methods than this free course. This is just a stated fact. 
(C) Skiers who completed the course are no less likely to be involved in a collision than they would have been if they had not completed the course. - CORRECT. This shows that the course isn't meeting its true purpose. Also, negating the option as " Skiers who completed the course are  no  less likely to be involved in a collision than they would have been if they had not completed the course " weakens the conclusion. This is definitely a good choice. 
(D) There is no way to reduce the current costs of running the mountain safety courses. - Irrelevant. We are not worried about reducing the mountain costs. 
(E) Even though the courses are free, most skiers would prefer not to spend their time attending a safety course. - Irrelevant. We are not worried about the skiers' preferences. Also, even though if this statement is true, it would act as a weakener, since the skiers think the course is useless. This definitely can't be the assumption.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kudos if it helps !!

Ashokshiva · Answer

Contents of Option C are already in passage.

can C be the answer choice?

Awaitning OA

gmatexam439 · Answer

I am no expert, but let me give it a shot.

I concur with your observation but the statement is not exactly worded the way it is in premise. 
Although it means the same, the statement if negated will weaken the argument. Also, no other option is relevant in our scenario.

Therefore, option "C" is the only viable solution here.

Hope that helps!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kudos if it helps!

AkshayKS21 · Answer

OA is C.
Let me try too:

This is what passage says:
 
This is what C says:

Difference:
Passage says that Skiers who completed the course were just as likely to be involved in collision as skiers who did not complete the course. Author assumes that even if only skiers who completed the course are allowed to ski, then too collisions would happen. This leads author to conclude the course is ineffective.

Another point:
For assumption questions try negating the answer choice (and say "then what?"), in a way assumption should help/support the passage
 Lets do that:
(A) The skier safety courses could   not   be improved without substantially increasing the program's budget.  Then what? Author says we are already wasting thousands of dollars. This can't be his point. This answer choice should be discarded immediately 
(B) There are   no   other methods besides offering skier safety courses that are more effective in reducing the risk of skier collisions and injuries.  So what? What are anyways discussing about the course in subject 
(C) Skiers who completed the course are    no   less likely to be involved in a collision than they would have been if they had not completed the course. Oh. If they are less likely to get involved in a collision after the course, then the course is not ineffective. The negation is weakening the conclusion.
 This is it. But lets see other answers too 
(D) There is    no  a   way to reduce the current costs of running the mountain safety courses. But it is still ineffective according to the author.
 And reducing costs will still can't make it effective! 
(E)    Even though    the courses are free, most skiers would prefer    not   to spend their time attending a safety course. This answer choice should be immediately discarded without taking effort to negate. Skiers prefer or not doesn't make the course less or more effective.

Hope it helped..

subsauce · Answer

I fundamentally disagree with this explanation. Arbitrarily the skiers who take the course, and skiers who do not take the course are grouped into group A and group B. It must be noted, that before group A actually takes the course, group A and B are identical (in the fact neither have taken the course).

The passage explicitly states that research had been conducted which found that both skiers who did not take the course (group A) and skiers who did take the course (group B) have the same likelihood of getting into an accident. The research is presented as fact.

To say, group A potentially has a larger likelihood of getting into an accident is illogical given the information. If group A did not take the course then they would belong to group B. But the passage already explains group A has the SAME likelihood of getting into an accident as group B. Thus the assumption if the skiers who would have taken the course, did not, would get into more accidents, contradicts exactly what the passage says.

GMATNinjaTwo · Answer

The passage says that AFTER completing the course, skiers who COMPLETED the course (group B) were just as likely to be involved in a collision as skiers who did not complete the course (group B).

The passage does NOT say that the two groups had the same likelihood BEFORE group B completed the course. Thus, it would not contradict the passage to say that group B was more likely to be involved in an accident before taking the course. For example, imagine that the ski patrol forced any skier who was involved in an accident or who was caught doing something dangerous (i.e. riding at excessive speeds) to take the course. In other words, perhaps the only people who take the course are people who are more dangerous in the first place. So before the course, group B's odds of collision may have been well above average and now, thanks to the course, their odds are average.

PrajwalGupta · Answer

Guys, this question is the exact reason why one should not refer to non-OG questions for Verbal. 
Please Kudos if you agree

preetamsaha · Answer

GMATNinja 
argument says : "Despite this admirable initiative, a study shows that, during the past 10 years, skiers who completed the course were just as likely to be involved in a collision as skiers who did not complete the course."

answer choice C says : "Skiers who completed the course are no less likely to be involved in a collision than they would have been if they had not completed the course."

are not they same? please help me in simple explanation . thanks .

GMATNinja · Answer

Take a look at the explanations for (C) in  this  post and  this  post, and let us know if that clears it up!

vMani · Answer

The stats shown just below the timer puts a considerable amount of performance pressure. We see that before the question. Any information about the number of participants getting the answers right or about the difficulty of the question beforehand puts us (at least me) in a very uncomfortable position. Can you change this so that the stats are shown in the spoiler tab instead of its current location?  PLEASE!!!!! 
It would be a great help.

Bunuel · Answer

You could click HIDE TIMER STATISTICS to hide the stats: 2020-07-30_14-59-32.png And then, if interested, you can click SHOW TIMER STATISTICS to show the stats again: 2020-07-30_14-59-06.png

Ganeshmantri · Answer

Well, For option B, Conclusion says that the courses need to 'be improved or eliminated' - Doesn't improved suggest that some other method exists? As for option C, Its it just a repitition of what is mentioned in the question. Don't think it can be counted as an 'Assumption' if we repeat it. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks

egmat · Answer

For option B,

When the author says one option is that the course should be improved, that means creating a better course, not devising an entirely different way which is not a course. Hence option B cannot hold with that justification.

For option C,
You are correct in saying that an assumption must state new information which is not present in the passage. However, we should notice the difference between the statement in the premise and option C. The premise deals with two separate groups of skiers, while the option deals with the same group of skiers before and after they complete the course. C is necessary for the conclusion as it tells us that even for people who completed the course, it made no improvement compared to their state before that.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Ski Resort Board Member: The free skier safety courses that have been

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

Ski Resort Board Member: The free skier safety courses that have been

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