Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
18 Sep 2025, 07:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi isteducimus,
The reason option A is incorrect is that it shifts the discussion in an entirely different direction. The argument is not about infant injuries in general, but specifically about injuries related to baby carriers, and more precisely, the safety claims of the Dear One Baby Carrier. For example, even if 80 percent of infant injuries happen outside of carrier use, and that is a significant number, that statistic is irrelevant to evaluating whether Dear One is safer among carriers. What matters here is the subset of injuries related to carriers (ie. the other 20 percent), and whether Dear One stands out in that context. It is important to understand the comparison framework and stay within the argument’s scope when evaluating or challenging it.
The reason option A is incorrect is that it shifts the discussion in an entirely different direction. The argument is not about infant injuries in general, but specifically about injuries related to baby carriers, and more precisely, the safety claims of the Dear One Baby Carrier. For example, even if 80 percent of infant injuries happen outside of carrier use, and that is a significant number, that statistic is irrelevant to evaluating whether Dear One is safer among carriers. What matters here is the subset of injuries related to carriers (ie. the other 20 percent), and whether Dear One stands out in that context. It is important to understand the comparison framework and stay within the argument’s scope when evaluating or challenging it.
isteducimus
21 Oct 2025, 07:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
I like the solution - it’s helpful. Apart from mentioning how option (d) can be attributed to user fault, the use of occasionally vs often can help in weighing (E) as the stronger weakner.
(D): Some parents find the Dear One’s rigid shell makes harness fastening awkward, so they occasionally leave straps slightly loose.
(E) Pediatric safety experts have found that carriers that convert into car seats often fail to meet car seat safety standards.
often in (E) can signify that there are more chances of Dear one baby carrier failing safety standards than parents leaving it loose due to rigid shell.
(D): Some parents find the Dear One’s rigid shell makes harness fastening awkward, so they occasionally leave straps slightly loose.
(E) Pediatric safety experts have found that carriers that convert into car seats often fail to meet car seat safety standards.
often in (E) can signify that there are more chances of Dear one baby carrier failing safety standards than parents leaving it loose due to rigid shell.
24 Oct 2025, 12:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hey, dont really think these two questions achieve the same goal. The one you linked makes a clear definition that the chair bought this year is considerably lighter than previous "safe chairs", making the question easy to answer.
In the case of this question, I have to agree with other posters, that E is not good enough. It even looks like a trap answer we may find in many other problems, where assuming the object in discussion falls under a generalized category is a mistake. I would get rid of the word "OFTEN" in E, although that may make it a bit too easy.
In the case of this question, I have to agree with other posters, that E is not good enough. It even looks like a trap answer we may find in many other problems, where assuming the object in discussion falls under a generalized category is a mistake. I would get rid of the word "OFTEN" in E, although that may make it a bit too easy.
bb
