PT2.S2.Q16 - The advanced technology of ski boots and

odel.justinodel.justin Member
edited February 2019 in Logical Reasoning 28 karma

I eliminated every ac except B and E. I am assuming that B is wrong because it says "increased between" the years which we can not say because it only talks about the incidence of the two years mentioned in the stimulus.

Admin note: edited title

Comments

  • LCMama2017LCMama2017 Alum Member
    2134 karma

    I looked at this question and eliminated B, C, and D right away. I kept A and E and ultimately chose E as the answer. I eliminated AC B because we don't know that the amount of alcohol increased between 1950 and 1980. All the stimulus is telling us is that the incidence of injuries increases with the amount of alcohol consumed - that doesn't mean that we know that alcohol consumption increased.

  • SamiSami Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor
    edited February 2019 10774 karma

    Consider this analogous argument: just because we know smoking causes cancer does not mean that if we know that rate of cancer increased so did smoking. There could be other causes of cancer.

    Answer choice B is talking about the actual amount of alcohol consumed increasing over the years but the stimulus only gives us information that increasing alcohol consumption increases the amount of injuries not on slopes. But from the stimulus we only know that the amount of injuries not on slopes increased over the years. But this does not mean that now we can say amount of alcohol consumption also increased.

  • LCMama2017LCMama2017 Alum Member
    2134 karma

    @Sami said:

    Consider this analogous argument: just because we know smoking causes cancer does not mean that if we know that rate of cancer increased so did smoking. There could be other causes of cancer.

    Answer choice B is talking about the actual amount of alcohol consumed increasing over the years but the stimulus only gives us information that increasing alcohol consumption increases the amount of injuries not on slopes. But from the stimulus we only know that the amount of injuries not on slopes increased over the years. But this does not mean that now we can say amount of alcohol consumption also increased.

    Your answer is much more eloquent than mine :smile:

  • Logic GainzLogic Gainz Alum Member ⭐
    700 karma

    I like how there are different ways to view stimuli!

    I interpreted this as a "percentage" to "absolute amount" error. We know the rate went from 10% to 25%, but that doesn't mean the nominal/actual amount of those injuries increased. We would actually expect that if less injuries are happening on the slopes due to the technology increase.

    Maybe in 1950 there were 3 of these alcohol-related injuries out of 30 total injuries (10%), but due to the tech update, those total injuries now amount to only 12, with the alcohol-related injuries remaining at 3 (25%).

  • SamiSami Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor
    10774 karma

    @"Logic Gainz" said:
    I like how there are different ways to view stimuli!

    I interpreted this as a "percentage" to "absolute amount" error. We know the rate went from 10% to 25%, but that doesn't mean the nominal/actual amount of those injuries increased. We would actually expect that if less injuries are happening on the slopes due to the technology increase.

    You are absolutely correct. When I read the last line of the stimulus, I didn't even think this far. There was no reason for me to keep thinking about the last line because the relationship between alcohol and injuries was only one way and we can't make an inference from that. But you explanation is on point. We don't know if the incidence of injuries not on slopes increased.

    Maybe in 1950 there were 3 of these alcohol-related injuries out of 30 total injuries (10%), but due to the tech update, those total injuries now amount to only 12, with the alcohol-related injuries remaining at 3 (25%).

    I am not sure here if you made an inference that the last sentence is talking about alcohol-related injuries. But just to make sure, It's referencing to the total amount of injuries not on slopes. Both the last sentence and answer choice B stay consistent about alcohol consumed per skier, which is the rate. It's just that we cannot say anything about the rate of alcohol consumption increasing from the stimulus.

  • SamiSami Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor
    10774 karma

    @LCMama2017 said:

    @Sami said:

    Consider this analogous argument: just because we know smoking causes cancer does not mean that if we know that rate of cancer increased so did smoking. There could be other causes of cancer.

    Answer choice B is talking about the actual amount of alcohol consumed increasing over the years but the stimulus only gives us information that increasing alcohol consumption increases the amount of injuries not on slopes. But from the stimulus we only know that the amount of injuries not on slopes increased over the years. But this does not mean that now we can say amount of alcohol consumption also increased.

    Your answer is much more eloquent than mine :smile:

    Naah. You are the sweetest. :kissing_heart: I hope you are doing well <3.

  • Logic GainzLogic Gainz Alum Member ⭐
    700 karma

    @Sami Oh wow, excuse the typo! My comment should have had the "ski-related" incidents going from a hypothetical 30 to 12, not the alcohol-related incidents. My comment must have been mad confusing.

    Either way, I agree in that the relationship given is one way and won't allow us to infer anything about alcoholic consumption.

Sign In or Register to comment.