Q.1) 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 ten 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 sled can carry more than one rider, an accident involving a wooden sled can result in several children being injured.­

Detailed Answer

This is a question where we need to Weaken the evidence of more accidents attributed to plastic sleds. Before you can read the answer choices, write down your own short information given in the question .

My short notes:

-Wooden in past
-New Plastic sleds faster
-Wooden easier to steer/slow
-Sled injuries HIGHER last winter

Conclusion: Plastic sleds more dangerous

Assumption: More injuries DUE to the switch from wood to plastic

Since this is a cause/effect claim, the easiest way to undermine this would be to show that the rise in child injuries last year is NOT due to steering/slowing. Is there another cause?

(C) provides us with the cause. The plastic sleds themselves aren’t to blame. They are being used in MORE conditions, so if there’s more sledding then there’s likely more accidents. So it’s indirect