- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:59 pm
#71274
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning, Numbers and Percentages. The correct answer choice is (D).
This is a Flaw in the Reasoning question that explicitly (in the question stem) requires us to identify a piece of information the author failed to consider. The missing information must be relevant to the argument, and have the potential (by itself) to weaken the conclusion.
The stimulus argument reaches a conclusion about the level of danger posed by mountain climbing (that the popular media is exaggerating that danger) based solely on premises comparing the lower number of times a negative outcome occurred in certain instances of mountain climbing (200 climbing fatalities on Mount Everest between 1922 and 2002) versus the much higher number of times a negative outcome occurred in certain instances of driving (7,000 traffic fatalities in France in 2002).
Any conclusion about the level of danger posed by an activity is a conclusion that is percentage-based. To know how dangerous something is, we must know the chance of a bad outcome occurring. And to know the chance of a bad outcome occurring we need a complete fraction: the number of bad outcomes (the numerator), divided by the total number of times people engaged in the general activity (the denominator).
For both mountain climbing, and for driving, we're missing the denominator. How many people climbed on Everest between 1922 and 2002? How many people drove (or were near drivers) in France in 2002? Without that information, we cannot make a secure conclusion about danger. The flaw is thus that the author has thus failed to consider something crucial to the conclusion: the number of times the described activities occur in general. Our prephrase should be an answer choice that refers to that missing information.
Answer choice (A): The key missing information is not data about other years' traffic fatalities in France. Even if we knew that information, we still would not know how "dangerous" driving (or being near drivers) in France is. So this information does not in itself affect the argument, and the author's failure to consider it is not a flaw.
Answer choice (B): Again, the key missing information is not data about other countries' numbers of traffic fatalities. Even if we knew that information, we still would not know how "dangerous" driving (or being near drivers) in France is. So this information does not in itself affect the argument, and the author's failure to consider it is not a flaw.
Answer choice (C): Once again, this answer choice fails to refer to the key missing information we identified in the prephrase above. Knowing whether fatalities could possibly be reduced by stricter safety measures would tell us nothing about the level of actual danger posed by mountain climbing. So such information does not in itself affect the argument, and the author's failure to consider it is not a flaw.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. This answer fits the prephrase, because it discusses the missing information we identified (the denominator number of how many people engage in the activities in general). Here, some of the information we could supply (e.g. that there were only 200 climbers generally on Everest during the 80 years; and that there were 1,000,000 drivers traveling on French roads in 2002) could directly weaken the conclusion by suggesting that the popular media is not exaggerating how dangerous mountain climbing. Thus, the author's failure to consider that information makes the conclusion weaker than it would be otherwise.
Answer choice (E): No matter what number of climbing accidents there were on mountains other than Everest (whether there were 1,000, 5,000, or even 10,000 such accidents), the conclusion could not be weakened simply by knowing that information alone. That is because we still wouldn't know the number of times people engage in mountain climbing (or in driving cars) generally. So with that information (whatever it was), we still could not be certain whether the author's conclusion was flawed. So the author's failure to consider that information is not a flaw.
Flaw in the Reasoning, Numbers and Percentages. The correct answer choice is (D).
This is a Flaw in the Reasoning question that explicitly (in the question stem) requires us to identify a piece of information the author failed to consider. The missing information must be relevant to the argument, and have the potential (by itself) to weaken the conclusion.
The stimulus argument reaches a conclusion about the level of danger posed by mountain climbing (that the popular media is exaggerating that danger) based solely on premises comparing the lower number of times a negative outcome occurred in certain instances of mountain climbing (200 climbing fatalities on Mount Everest between 1922 and 2002) versus the much higher number of times a negative outcome occurred in certain instances of driving (7,000 traffic fatalities in France in 2002).
Any conclusion about the level of danger posed by an activity is a conclusion that is percentage-based. To know how dangerous something is, we must know the chance of a bad outcome occurring. And to know the chance of a bad outcome occurring we need a complete fraction: the number of bad outcomes (the numerator), divided by the total number of times people engaged in the general activity (the denominator).
For both mountain climbing, and for driving, we're missing the denominator. How many people climbed on Everest between 1922 and 2002? How many people drove (or were near drivers) in France in 2002? Without that information, we cannot make a secure conclusion about danger. The flaw is thus that the author has thus failed to consider something crucial to the conclusion: the number of times the described activities occur in general. Our prephrase should be an answer choice that refers to that missing information.
Answer choice (A): The key missing information is not data about other years' traffic fatalities in France. Even if we knew that information, we still would not know how "dangerous" driving (or being near drivers) in France is. So this information does not in itself affect the argument, and the author's failure to consider it is not a flaw.
Answer choice (B): Again, the key missing information is not data about other countries' numbers of traffic fatalities. Even if we knew that information, we still would not know how "dangerous" driving (or being near drivers) in France is. So this information does not in itself affect the argument, and the author's failure to consider it is not a flaw.
Answer choice (C): Once again, this answer choice fails to refer to the key missing information we identified in the prephrase above. Knowing whether fatalities could possibly be reduced by stricter safety measures would tell us nothing about the level of actual danger posed by mountain climbing. So such information does not in itself affect the argument, and the author's failure to consider it is not a flaw.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. This answer fits the prephrase, because it discusses the missing information we identified (the denominator number of how many people engage in the activities in general). Here, some of the information we could supply (e.g. that there were only 200 climbers generally on Everest during the 80 years; and that there were 1,000,000 drivers traveling on French roads in 2002) could directly weaken the conclusion by suggesting that the popular media is not exaggerating how dangerous mountain climbing. Thus, the author's failure to consider that information makes the conclusion weaker than it would be otherwise.
Answer choice (E): No matter what number of climbing accidents there were on mountains other than Everest (whether there were 1,000, 5,000, or even 10,000 such accidents), the conclusion could not be weakened simply by knowing that information alone. That is because we still wouldn't know the number of times people engage in mountain climbing (or in driving cars) generally. So with that information (whatever it was), we still could not be certain whether the author's conclusion was flawed. So the author's failure to consider that information is not a flaw.