Good Luck They are inferior and chances can be taken to sled

Question

Good Luck

They are inferior and chances can be taken to sled across the snow ?

sangarelli · Answer

This is a (C).

They are superior and chances can be taken to sled across the ice in varied conditions.

Juaz · Answer

Agree C.

ak_idc · Answer

Cool explanation. Would go with C. 8-)

baski6 · Answer

I thought initially B , but after your explanation going to C.

You really ROCK...

mukeshnathani · Answer

Hi, Can you pls. explain in a bit more detail , why (C) is correct.I thought of (D) because we need to find an answer that undermines the evidence.I beleive that the evidence cited here is that "more accidents have occurred in last ten years.." Now (D) says that this happened but most occurred "when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled" 
Pls. correct me where I am going wrong ? Thanks in advance.

ugo_castelo · Answer

the question is a math one
If your number of accidents increased (numerator), the way to decrease your ratio or (keep it) is to increase your denominator (number of users per thousand for example)

londonluddite · Answer

Its saying that plastic sleds are more common now and that they are faster and therefore more dangerous, then uses last winter vs 10 yrs ago as an argument. What if it snowed more last year than ever before, therefore increasing sled usage? Or as correctly pointed out, what if you can use plastic sleds in many more condition types, allowing kids to sled alot more than 10 yrs ago?

brufarber · Answer

One more for C.
It is undermined cause maybe they are not more dangerous, but the number of people using them increased, which caused the higher number of injuries.

rbcola · Answer

OA is C

brufarber · Answer

Are you serious cola!?
I'd say that B could only be true if more children were sliding and also unprotected. But just saying that they aren't wearing helmets....quantity is not an issue in this answer, so it sounds too poor for me. On the other hand, the more alternative usages found for these items, the more people will use them; therefore, weakeaning the whole argument. Do you have the OE by any chance? Thanks mate!

GMATT73 · Answer

Is it just my PC, or is there an inherent contradiction in the evidence above?

Assuming it's a typo, I still take (C) here based on simple logic:

Mass produced, squirly plastic sleds can be used more often = higher probability of accidents.

Old fashioned, wooden sleds with built in steering mechanisms require better conditions, therefore must be used less often = lower probability of accidents.

Matrix02 · Answer

My answer would be C. I have seen this question before....I can't remember if it was on the forum or on one my practice CATS's and as I recall the correct answer was C. Where is this question from?

Matrix02 · Answer

OA from below thread is C... this question was on the form before: https://gmatclub.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php ... c9cc3cca74

kripalkavi · Answer

Just because plastic sleds can be used in a wider variety of snow conditions why should the number of  injuries  (not accidents) increase?? 
On the other hand, if mst children dont wear protective gear, that would explainwhy the number of  injuries (not accidents) are more.

rbcola · Answer

This question is from the OG-11 page 32. OA is in fact C.

anandsebastin · Answer

Matt, 
I think there is no contradiction in the evidence. Here's why:
Plastic sleds go faster. So it is difficult to steer them. Since they go so fast, it is also difficult to slow them.

Good Luck They are inferior and chances can be taken to sled

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