Retired cricketers have been agitating for limits on the number of

Question

Retired cricketers have been agitating for limits on the number of tournaments played at a stretch by a cricketer aged 28-38. It is well known that training time plays a vital role in maintaining fitness levels. They argue that playing a large number of tournaments at a stretch reduces the cricketers’ training time, hampering their fitness levels and making them prone to injuries. However, the average time a cricketer spends playing typically does not exceed 5-6 hours per day. Therefore, limiting the number of tournaments played at a stretch is not really required.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

(A) The proportion of serious injuries incurred by a cricketer is more dependent on the number of tournaments played by the cricketer than on the spacing between tournaments.
(B) The fitness program and the training time that a player puts in every day are enough to ensure that fitness is maintained for any number of matches played by him.
(C) Even while playing a tournament and accounting for other non-professional commitments, a cricketer still has ample time to train and rest to maintain if not enhance his fitness level.
(D) A player will be able to significantly reduce the likelihood of injuries once an upper limit is put on the number of matches he can play.
(E) While not playing cricket tournaments, most cricketers will choose to spend a good proportion of the time they have on enhancing their fitness levels.

Rahul257 · Answer

How is C correct?? Cricketers are playing and accounting? 
How does this make any sense? Riddled with issues IMO. I dont think this is can be considered a GMAT question.

Posted from my mobile device

anishahulkat · Answer

The argument mentions: The tournament is of 5-6 hours a day and there are 24 hours in a day, so there is no nee to decrease the tournaments in a stretch. So, to connect this two statements, we need that after 5-6 hours of the match the player will have sufficient energy to train or he will have time, which is in line with what is stated in C. Hope this helps

Rahul257 · Answer

\
Grammatically option C doesnt make any sense. Playing and accounting act like parallel participle modifiers. It creates a different meaning. I dont think GMAT will give option which are grammatically ambigous

priyadevpura · Answer

lets break the passage

retired players are saying that xyz should limit the number of tournaments played by particular cricketer aged between 28-38 
 because if cricketers keep playing one tournament after the other they might not have time to maintain their fitness, which plays critical role, without maintaining their fitness levels they are prone to injuries.
However, the conclusion states that a player only plays for an average of 5-6 hours in a day, so there is no need of setting limits on player for how many tournaments they can play.

Assumption  even after playing for 5-6 hours they still have 18-19 hours in a day - which they can utilize for personal training 
 and it is clearly stated in option C

ninad8 · Answer

GMATNinja  why is B wrong? Isn't option B also a necessary assumption for conclusion to hold true

Advait01 · Answer

The tournament is of 5-6 hours a day and there are 24 hours in a day, so there is no nee to decrease the tournaments in a stretch. So, to connect this two statements, we need that after 5-6 hours of the match the player will have sufficient energy to train or he will have time, which is in line with what is stated in C.

AKSHATK69 · Answer

I think the question is not talking about other non-professional commitments, I don't know how C is correct.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi  AKSHATK69

let me try to help

Retired cricketers have been agitating for limits on the number of tournaments played at a stretch by a cricketer aged 28-38. It is well known that training time plays a vital role in maintaining fitness levels. They argue that playing a large number of tournaments at a stretch reduces the cricketers’ training time, hampering their fitness levels and making them prone to injuries. However, the average time a cricketer spends playing typically does not exceed 5-6 hours per day. Therefore, limiting the number of tournaments played at a stretch is not really required.

What has been presented to us

Conclusion- limitation on no. Of tournament at a stretch is not really required. Why?
Reason- Because players typically spend not more than 5 6 hours playing. So what?

Because Retired players stressed for training time why because training help them maintaining fitness levels and making them prone to injuries. How is this part connected?

Because author is assuming that players will have sufficient time to train even after playing 5 6 hours. Okk

So how the conclusion will break down as in in what case limitation will be required? Any option which states that even after playing for 5 6 hours they do not manage to allocate time to train. And this idea is framed in negated version of option C. So In my opinion there is not an issue with C.

Hope this helps

DrPranesh · Answer

A) Out of context.
B) Opposite choice, If the training is sufficient, then limits would not be required
C) Correct. Answers the question : does a cricketer have sufficient time and energy after playing 5-6 hours a day during tournament?
D) Out of Context.
E) The choice conveys what >50%(most) cricket player chooses to do. Choice of the player is irrelevant to the argument.

wanderingnights96 · Answer

I thought B too, but I think it's wrong because it says "everyday" whereas he passage states on 'average in a day'

guddo · Answer

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

The argument says that limits on consecutive tournaments are unnecessary because a cricketer usually spends only 5 to 6 hours a day actually playing. So the argument assumes that  even during tournaments, players still have enough remaining time to train and recover, so their fitness will not suffer just because they are playing many tournaments in a row .

(A) The proportion of serious injuries incurred by a cricketer is more dependent on the number of tournaments played by the cricketer than on the spacing between tournaments.

This is not required. The argument is not comparing number of tournaments with spacing between tournaments. It is arguing more broadly that limits are unnecessary.

(B) The fitness program and the training time that a player puts in every day are enough to ensure that fitness is maintained for any number of matches played by him.

This is too strong. The argument does not need to assume fitness can be maintained for any number of matches. It only needs to assume that playing tournaments does not leave players without enough time to train and rest.

(C) Even while playing a tournament and accounting for other non-professional commitments, a cricketer still has ample time to train and rest to maintain if not enhance his fitness level.

This is the best answer. The retired cricketers say too many tournaments reduce training time and hurt fitness. The argument answers that players usually play only 5 to 6 hours a day. For that response to work, it must assume that the remaining time is enough for training and rest.

(D) A player will be able to significantly reduce the likelihood of injuries once an upper limit is put on the number of matches he can play.

This goes in the opposite direction. The argument is trying to deny that such limits are needed, so it does not rely on this.

(E) While not playing cricket tournaments, most cricketers will choose to spend a good proportion of the time they have on enhancing their fitness levels.

This is not needed. The argument is about whether tournaments leave enough time for training and recovery, not what players do when they are not in tournaments.

Answer: (C)

Retired cricketers have been agitating for limits on the number of

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

Retired cricketers have been agitating for limits on the number of

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