- UID
- 579779
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2010-11-3
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
Duringthe past five years, more than 5000 Maltanians have drowned in boatingaccidents. Figures released by the country's Boating Association show thatninety percent of the victims were not wearing life jackets at the time oftheir accidents. This information indicates that by wearing life jackets,boaters can reduce their risk of drowning if they are involved in a boatingaccident. Whichof the following best supports the argument above? A.Most of the drowning victims were not wearing lifejackets at the time of theiraccidents B.More than ten percent of those involved in boating accidents were wearing lifejackets at the time C.Most boating accidents do not result in drowning D.The boating association is not funded by a company that manufactures life jackets E.Many of the drowning victims were knocked unconscious during their accidents
This is a simple math problem.
Premise: 1) 90% of drowning victims are not wearing life jackets.
Conclusion: Wearing life jackets can reduce the chance of drowning.
The stimulus asks for a strengthener.
Remember those probability questions in GMAT math? Here is a disguised one. Okay, what if 90% of all boaters are not wearing life jackets? Then statistically, you will find 90% victims wearing no life jackets. If so, the whole argument falls apart since there is no difference in terms of survival rate whether you wear a life jacket or not.
B says over 10% of those involved in boating accidents were wearing life jackets at the time. Then statistically speaking, wearing a life jacket DOES increase your chance of survival!
Choose B. |
|