This challenging CR question requires us to make an inference based on the passages. Inference questions are among the most-challenging Critical Reasoning problems.
Improved technology and equipment often result in fewer injuries during high-risk activities such as rock climbing and scuba diving. But participant education also plays a large role in reducing the number of injuries sustained during these activities. People who are poorly trained in these activities run a much higher risk of injury even if provided with the latest and best equipment.
Which of the following can be properly inferred from the information above?
A) Training is a more important safety factor than equipment in high-risk activities.
B) People who are properly trained in their activities do not sustain injuries.
C) The safety benefits of the latest equipment can be offset by inadequate preparation.
D) Rock climbing and scuba diving are more risky than any other activities.
E) People with the latest equipment often neglect proper training.
Here’s how I took the argument apart, on my yellow scratch-pad. 🙂
Conclusion: Poor training = higher risk of injury EVEN with equipment
Evidence: Participant education plays a “large role”
Assumption: The equipment resulting in “fewer injuries” only applies when people have been trained
Question Rephrase: What is BASED on the conclusion/evidence?
Prediction: Correct answer must connect the fewer injuries with the participant education training.
The closest choices are (A) and (C). If the conclusion says that there is high risk even WITH the equipment, then this best supports (C) since it is obvious the equipment itself it not preventing injuries.
The relative “importance” of the safety factors is not a part of the argument. The RISK is higher w/o training, even with equipment, but as the others have mentioned no comparison between training and equipment is made.
The answer is (C).