Question

In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was 10 years ago.
Which of the following, if true in Verland, most seriously undermines the force of the evidence cited?

• A. A few children still use traditional wooden sleds.
• B. Very few children wear any kind of protective gear, such as helmets, while sledding.
• C. Plastic sleds can be used in a much wider variety of snow conditions than wooden sleds can.
• D. Most sledding injuries occur when a sled collides with a tree, a rock, or another sled.
• E. Because the traditional wooden sleds can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.

Hint:

Be wary of arguments that rely on raw numbers instead of rates or percentages. An increase in the absolute number of incidents (like injuries) can often be explained by an increase in the underlying activity. Always look for an answer choice that points to such a change in the frequency of the activity.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Argument
The argument attempts to establish a causal link between the introduction of plastic sleds and an increase in sledding injuries.
Premise 1: Ten years ago, most children used wooden sleds.
Premise 2: Now, popular plastic sleds are faster and harder to steer.
Evidence: The total number of sledding injuries was much higher last winter than it was 10 years ago.
Conclusion (implied): Plastic sleds are more dangerous and are the cause of the increased injuries.
The argument assumes that the only significant change in sledding over the last 10 years is the type of sled used.

Step 2: Analyzing the Task
We need to find an answer choice that undermines or weakens this conclusion. This involves finding an alternative explanation for the increase in injuries. The argument is based on a correlation (more plastic sleds, more injuries) and assumes causation. To weaken it, we can show that the correlation might be coincidental or that another factor is responsible for the rise in injuries. The argument compares absolute numbers of injuries, not injury rates (e.g., injuries per hour of sledding). This is a common flaw.

Step 3: Evaluating the Options
(A) The fact that some children still use wooden sleds doesn't weaken the argument. The argument is about the overall trend and the impact of the now-popular plastic sleds.
(B) This factor (lack of protective gear) likely applied both 10 years ago and last winter. Since it's a constant condition, it cannot explain the increase in injuries over the 10-year period.
(C) This option provides a strong alternative explanation. If plastic sleds can be used in more varied snow conditions (e.g., in lighter snow where wooden sleds wouldn't work), it means that children can go sledding more often and on more days throughout the winter. An increase in the overall amount of sledding activity would naturally lead to a higher total number of injuries, even if the plastic sleds were not inherently more dangerous per use. This weakens the conclusion that the sleds themselves are the sole cause of the increased injury numbers.
(D) This describes how injuries happen but doesn't differentiate between the two types of sleds or the two time periods. Collisions are a risk with any type of sled. This doesn't weaken the evidence.
(E) This suggests that wooden sleds could potentially be dangerous in a specific way (injuring multiple children at once). If anything, this slightly weakens the case against plastic sleds, but it doesn't provide a comprehensive alternative explanation for the large increase in the total number of injured children last winter. Option (C) provides a much broader and more powerful alternative cause.
Step 4: Final Answer
Option (C) is the correct answer. It undermines the argument by pointing out a confounding variable: the total amount of time spent sledding. By showing that plastic sleds allow for more overall sledding activity, it provides a plausible reason for the increase in total injuries that is independent of the inherent danger of the sleds themselves.