请教牛牛们一道逻辑题，大家帮忙！

In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sldes became popular;they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact the number of children injuried while sleding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago.

Which of the following , if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?

A.A few children still use traditional wooden sleds

B.Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding

C.Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can

D.Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sleds

E.Because the traditional wooden sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injuried

---------------------------------------------------

我选E，我认为是他因式削弱。我一个朋友选B，但我认为B是support的。所以请大家帮忙解答。

还有其他牛牛可以分析一下吗？

I am a GMAT beginner.

My opinion:

No answer.

I think we should choose an answer

that indicates  that other reason (other than plastic sled)  increased the number of people injuried.  

我怎么觉得是C呢？

题目大概的意思是：

1。以前用wooden

2。plasitc 快

3。用plastic受伤的小孩的比以前用wooden的多

结论就是 plastic危险。

在读题的时候就应该分析题目的漏洞。这个题目的漏洞就是用了绝对数表达percentage。应该是percentage越大越危险（平均概念），而不是绝对数的多少。

比方说：在用wooden的时代，有100个人玩， 有10个人受伤 那么受伤率是10%.

在plastic时代，有1000个人玩，有50个人受伤，那么50>10，但是受伤率是5%，那你说是谁危险呢？

你看看选项，刚好C就这样说：因为plastic的适用性更大（基数）越大，但是绝对数大不代表percentage就一定大。就削弱了。

其他选项：

A。因为题目说了 smooth plastic sldes became popular，所以这个选项可以说是无关

B。在plastic 和wooden比较，没有提到什么gear

D 跟受伤的原因没关系

E。plastic能carry几个呢？不知道啊，所以有可能比wooden还多~

但是C没明确说到底这个基数大多少啊，大一点点也叫大吧。

Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can