CAT Critical Reasoning Practice question with Solution 34

We’re told that the incidence of on-slope injuries decreased from 9 injuries per 1000 skiers in 1950, to 3 injuries per 1000 skiers in 1980. That means a skier was much less likely to suffer an on-slope injury in 1980 than in 1950. Clearly, (B) is in direct contradiction with this.

(A) Although we know the “incidence” or rate of injuries on the slopes definitely decreased over this period, we don’t know anything about the actual number of injuries. If there were many more skiers on the slopes in 1980 (at least three times as many), then it’s quite possible that answer choice (A) is correct and on-slope injuries did go up.

(C) The stimulus says absolutely nothing about the reporting of injuries, so it’s not contradicted by (C).

(D) The stimulus provides us with absolutely no grounds for concluding anything about the actual number of skiers; we’re only told about the number of injuries per 1000 skiers, without being told the necessary information: how many thousand skiers there actually were. So answer choice (D) may or may not be true; it doesn’t contradict any information we’re given.

(E) Since we’re told that 25% of all ski related injuries occurred off the slopes, and that those injuries include things like “falling down steps,” (E) is actually a safe inference based on the stimulus.