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

[LSAT2020]

I'm struggling really badly with this question. The first explanation on here states that, "the only conclusion you should draw is that since the percentage of injuries attributed to non-slope activities rose, the percentage of injuries attributed to slope activities must have fallen, because those classification cover the entire resort."

Since we weren't given the total number of skiers that were present at the resort in 1950/1980 then I didn't think that we could make any inferences about the percentages. I figure our inferences would be around why the percentages for non-slope injuries or the number for slope injures changed from 1950 to 1980. My percentage/math skills in general are pretty bad, so I would greatly appreciate it if someone could dumb this down for me.

Thanks in advance!

[Paul Marsh]

Hey LSAT2020!

Our second sentence in the stimulus tells us: "the remainder of ski-related injuries, which includes all injuries occurring on the premises of a ski resort but not on the slopes, rose from 10 percent of all ski-related injuries in 1950 to 25 percent in 1980."

In other words, the percentage of ski injuries not occurring on the slopes went from 10% to 25%. In 1950, the percentage of ski injuries not occurring on the slopes was 10%. What was the other 90%? Well, it must have been ski injuries that DID occur on the slopes. The percentages of ski injuries have to add up to 100 (that's how percents work!). So again we know that the percentage of ski injuries that DID occur on the slopes was 90% in 1950. And for the same reason, we know that the percentage of ski injuries that DID occur on he slopes was 75% in 1980. So the percentage of ski injuries that occurred on the slopes has decreased.

Take a similar example: "The number of Texans who do not have dogs increased from 25% to 30%". What does that tell us? Well, that must mean that the number of Texans who DO own dogs decreased from 75% to 70%. In both this example and our stimulus, we're just talking about percents. We can talk about percents increasing or decreasing without knowing the actual raw number.

Hope that helps!

[sofcu23]

With this question, how can you assume that 3 injuries in 1980 means 3/1,000. Since it doesn't explicitly say it I thought it was just 3 injuries and that the stimulus was failing to tell you out of how many. Because of this I saw E as an immediate loser because you cannot draw a percentage from a number if you are not given a total.

This is a topic that has caused me a lot of trouble on the LSAT, when should I read the wording as super literal and when can I make assumptions like the one that was done above? Or how can I avoid a mistake like this in the future?

Thanks

[atierney]

Yes, this was a common point of confusion for this question. Whenever a comparison is made between the two numbers, it's always essential to discern the context. Here, it is the rate that is being changed, 9 of a thousand down to 3; therefore the rate is 3 of a thousand.

In general, the key is to assume consistent for numbers unless an specific error by means of changing the context occurs. In other words, the absence of language should never be assumed to change the context, but the presence of language could, and it will be this presence of changing language that will more than likely be the source of error for questions like this.

Let me know if you have further questions.

[npant120]

I just wanted to clarify the reason that we can assume that the injuries on the slopes and those not on the slopes make up the total number of ski-related injuries. Is it because the stimulus says "the remainder of ski-related injuries" right after talking about the injuries on the slopes? I'm assuming the placement of remainder is the key here, but am I missing any indicators?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Just one, npant120, and that's the binary nature of the subject matter. Every injury has to be either on the slopes, or else not on the slopes, because there is no third option. You're either on the slopes when you get hurt, or you aren't, right? It's not like they said on the slopes vs. in the ski lodge, leaving out all the other places like in parking lots or paths between the lodge and the slopes, etc.