PT2.S2.Q17- The advanced technology of ski boots...

Comments

• 1 Like

  Jacfiles96 Member

  July 2021 25 karma

  Howdy! If you read the first part of the passage, you will notice it says there was a decrease in the likelihood one would be injured on the slopes from 1950-1980. If you read carefully, the passage states that the incidence per 1000 skiers drops from 9 per 1000, to 3 per 1000 during those 30 years. The reason why answer a is wrong is because even with only 3 incidents per 1000 skiers on the slopes, you could still conceivably have more injuries overall if there were more than 3 times the number of skiers in the 1980s vs the 1950s. Answer choice b is correct because it is the only choice which directly contradicts the information in the passage, which is that an individual's likelihood to be injured on the slopes decreased from 1950-1980. There is absolutely nothing in the passage to justify the conclusion that there were less injuries overall on the slopes, only that the chance of injury decreased. Hope this helps, and good luck!
• 2 Likes

  castrone Member

  July 2021 210 karma

  a says that more people got injured on the slopes which may be true bc we only know the rate of slope injures per 1000, what if hella more people went skiing, the rate would be the same but more people in total would get hurt, but bc we know the rate went down thanks to the equipment, every individual person had a smaller probability of getting hurt, which is what B says