#17 - The advanced technology of ski boots and bindings has

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Cannot be True-#%. The correct answer choice is (B)

This question asks you what cannot be true, and you should select the response that disagrees with the passage. The incorrect responses will be either supported by the passage, or unsupported but still possible.

Answer choice (A): Since the stimulus does not support any conclusions about numbers, this statement could be true, and you should eliminate it.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Since the statistics show that the likelihood of injury on the slope fell from 9/1000 to 3/1000 from 1950 to 1980, someone who actually skied the slopes in 1950 would be more, not less, likely to be injured.

Answer choice (C): Some people might feel that this response could challenge the validity of the statistics in the passage. However, even if this response is true, the trends described in the passage could be true, so there is no conflict between this statement and the stimulus.

Answer choice (D): The stimulus does not support any conclusions about numbers, so this statement could be true, and you should eliminate it.

Answer choice (E): This response actually must be true, so you should eliminate it. For the percentage of non-slope injuries to rise, there had to be non-slope injuries.

[BostonLawGuy]

I would love to know if my assessment is correct.

Since non-slope and slope injuries make up a total of all injuries, and non-slope injuries went from 10% to 25%, can we infer that SLOPE injuries went from 90% to 75%?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Boston Law Guy,

Great analysis. You are spot on. The stimulus here splits injuries between slope related injuries and non-slope injuries ("the remainder"). When working with percentages, you know the total has to add to 100%. If non-slope related injuries are 10%, that means slope related injuries must be 90%. If the non-slope related injuries rise to 25% of the total, the slope related injuries would fall to 75%.

Keep up the good work
Rachael

[cmorris32]

Hi PowerScore!

I chose answer choice A because I mistakenly thought that the fact that in 1950, there were 9 out of 1,000 injuries and in 1980, there were 3 out of 1,000 injuries proved answer A to be true.

However, is it correct that answer choice A is incorrect because in 1950, there could have been 1,000 skiers but in 1980, there could have been 5,000 skiers, thereby proving that more injuries occurred in 1980 than in 1950?

Thank you!
Caroline

[demk26]

Hi Powerscore,

I'm also confused why Answer (A) is incorrect. Is it incorrect because while we know that in 1950, the number of SLOPE ski injuries was 9 skiers per 1000 and in 1980 it was 3 skiers per 1000, we don't know the actual number of skiers injured on the slopes and what total that number is out of?

Is Answer (B) correct because, as was pointed out above, in 1950 the likelihood of injury on the slopes was 90% while in 1980 the likelihood of injury was 75%?

Thank you!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Caroline and demk,

You're both right about answer choice A! All we have in the stimulus is a ratio (injuries per 1,000 skiers) for 1950 and 1980. Thus we can't extrapolate anything about the total number of injuries, because we don't know how many skiers total there were in 1950 and 1980. Classic numbers/percents problem, where we don't have enough information to say for sure whether an answer (or a conclusion) is true or false!

Demk, you're on the right track! Answer choice B is correct because those 9/1000 and 3/1000 ratios are giving us the likelihood of being injured in 1950 and 1980, respectively. In 1950, the likelihood is derived simply by dividing 9 by 1,000 (a 0.9% chance of injury); and in 1980, the likelihood is derived by dividing 3 by 1,000 (a 0.3% chance of injury). Since we therefore know the likelihood (the percent chance) of a skier being injured on the slopes was greater in 1950 than 1980, answer choice B cannot be true ("conflicts with information in the passage").

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[LSAT student]

Hello,

I picked (A) and am a little confused by the explanation for why it is wrong. It says the stimulus makes no conclusion about numbers. Is that because 3/1000 and 9/1000 are percentages?

Thanks

[stevendoering]

I spent a little more time than I would have liked eliminating answer choice C. However, the question demands something that necessarily conflicts with something from the stimulus. If C were taken to be true, this MAY result in a conflict (ie the rate of accident on the slopes were actually 1/1000 in 1950), however, C gives zero indication in which direction the accuracy swings. Thus it could still be compatible with the stimulus.

[Paul Marsh]

Hi stevendoering! You're right. For a Cannot be True question like this one, our right answer needs to explicitly contradict the information in our stimulus. There is nothing here in our stimulus that explicitly contradicts answer choice C.

And LSAT Student - you are exactly right. A is wrong because the relevant info in the stimulus discusses percentages, not raw numbers. The raw number of injuries on slopes may in fact have increased between 1950 and 1980 - maybe the number of people who ski drastically increased over that time. B is correct because it doesn't deal with raw numbers, instead it continues to discuss percentages.

Hope that helps!

[Dancingbambarina]

Regarding Answer Choice D, I have noticed how the test allows for assumptions to be made like this: if advanced, then the more advance they will become the lesser the number will be. That's an interesting relationship. With The Rhodopsin molecular motion question, the same concept is referred to with "normal" molecular, where it is assumed that it is a variable kind of "normal" and not a fixed type where no corresponding increase can occur as it itself occurs i.e. more advanced ski boots greater reduction in numbers... and more molecular motion greater occurences of rhodopsin changing shape