Let us understand what the argument is saying -
Incorrect that district admin banned drag racing.
Reason : Only 50 got injured in drag racing vs. 400 in got injured in baseball. Admin should ban baseball.
The reasoning is flawed because ? : Let us look at options...
(A) It compares two different types of sports.
WRONG - Argument does no such thing - it just mentions does not compare sports(B) It does not take into account the treatment cost of the injuries.
WRONG - Beyond scope...(C) It fails to take into account the total number of people who drag race and the total number of people who play baseball.
CORRECT - 50 out of 50 drag racers could have been injured whereas 400 out of thousands in baseball could have been injured destroying the basis of argument.(D) It does not take into account injuries caused in other sports such as boxing.
WRONG - Out of scope.(E) It uses inaccurate data to support its conclusion.[/quote]
WRONG - we do not know if data is inaccurateHence
Option (C) is our choice.
Best,
G
carcass wrote:
It is not correct on the part of the district administration to ban the sport of drag racing. After all, only 50 people have been injured in the last one year while drag racing whereas more than 400 people have been injured while playing baseball. The administration should, thus, ban baseball instead.
The argument above is flawed because:
(A) It compares two different types of sports.
(B) It does not take into account the treatment cost of the injuries.
(C) It fails to take into account the total number of people who drag race and the total number of people who play baseball.
(D) It does not take into account injuries caused in other sports such as boxing.
(E) It uses inaccurate data to support its conclusion.