CR- MGMAT Practice Center

[saukachi]

For the first time in history, more televisions than people can be found in American households. According to recent research, the average household has 2.55 residents and contains 2.73 televisions. However, by employing such costly manufacturing processes as plasma technology and flat screens, televisions are becoming too expensive for the typical consumer. As a result, the average number of residents per household will again surpass the number of televisions.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument above?


A. House parties at which numerous individuals gather to view popular television shows on one television set have increased three hundred percent during the past year.

B. More than one million legal immigrants enter the United States each year.

C. New devices such as video-enabled personal digital assistants and music players are increasingly purchased for use as a primary source of information and entertainment.

D. As new technologies become more commonplace, manufacturing and retail costs normally decline.

E. As a result of technological advances, new televisions are increasingly enabled with some features, such as Internet browsing, traditionally associated with other household devices.
_______________________________________________________
I thing the argument-conclusion can be framed as below:
High cost of TVs -> leading to lesser no. of TVs per household.

Since the question asks which option "strongly supports the argument ", we need to pick the choice that strengthens the cause-effect relationship.
Choice C (correct answer) builds an alternate cause for the given effect. Hence, it should be incorrect.
A- Irrelevant/weakens by providing alternate reason
B- Irrelevant
C- Weakens by providing alternate reason
D- Weakens the conclusion
E- Weakens the conclusion

In my opinion option B should be correct as it has no impact on the cause effect relationship.

[saukachi]

Can MGMAT staff please help me on this one??

[saukachi]

Can MGMAT staff please help me on this one??

Tim / Stacey,

Can someone please help me ?

[saukachi]

Jamie,

Can you suggest why my question is kept unanswered?
Please let me know if I need to clarify my doubt/explanation/question. But please update me on this one.

Thanks.

[saukachi]

Manhattan Staff,

It has been really long waiting for your response to my question.
It is quite disheartening to witness your indifferent attitude towards a member who has been waiting for an update for long.

I have been studying from Manhattan books and wanted your faculty to reply and correct my approach. But now it seems to be an effort in vain.

Your management has utterly disappointed me.

Thanks.

[amitganguly2k12]

For the first time in history, more televisions than people can be found in American households. According to recent research, the average household has 2.55 residents and contains 2.73 televisions. However, by employing such costly manufacturing processes as plasma technology and flat screens, televisions are becoming too expensive for the typical consumer. As a result, the average number of residents per household will again surpass the number of televisions.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument above?


A. House parties at which numerous individuals gather to view popular television shows on one television set have increased three hundred percent during the past year.

B. More than one million legal immigrants enter the United States each year.

C. New devices such as video-enabled personal digital assistants and music players are increasingly purchased for use as a primary source of information and entertainment. -- Correct,as it provided alternate reason for the conclusion. Hence OA.

D. As new technologies become more commonplace, manufacturing and retail costs normally decline.

E. As a result of technological advances, new televisions are increasingly enabled with some features, such as Internet browsing, traditionally associated with other household devices.
_______________________________________________________
I thing the argument-conclusion can be framed as below:
High cost of TVs -> leading to lesser no. of TVs per household.

Since the question asks which option "strongly supports the argument ", we need to pick the choice that strengthens the cause-effect relationship.
Choice C (correct answer) builds an alternate cause for the given effect. Hence, it should be incorrect. Why ?

A- Irrelevant/weakens by providing alternate reason
B- Irrelevant
C- Weakens by providing alternate reason
D- Weakens the conclusion
E- Weakens the conclusion

In my opinion option B should be correct as it has no impact on the cause effect relationship.

The second part of your question is not aligned with your first part.

I believe that C is correct here as per 1st part of question.

[saukachi]

Amit, Can you please elaborate your approach and clarify the answer?

[tim]

saukachi, it is quite disheartening to witness your indifferent attitude towards our forum rules. EVERY SINGLE TIME you have replied to your own post, you have pushed your post to the back of the line and guaranteed additional waiting time for yourself. Your post would have been answered several weeks ago if you had just read the forum rules and waited patiently like everyone else. I have rarely seen such rude behavior from a poster on these forums. You seem to think you have a right to expect an answer on demand from this service we provide free to the community. If you are so impatient that you cannot wait for an answer, we have private tutors who can meet with you any time of the day or night..

That said, your post has come to the top of the queue and we don't hold grudges, so now I can answer your question. Remember the argument claims that people will soon outnumber TVs, and this could be accomplished quite effectively if the number of TVs purchased declines. What C does is help give a very direct reason why fewer TVs might be sold in the future. Thus it very much strengthens the argument. Please note that strengthening the argument does NOT mean strengthening anything except the conclusion..

[divineacclivity]

Remember the argument claims that people will soon outnumber TVs, and this could be accomplished quite effectively if the number of TVs purchased declines. What C does is help give a very direct reason why fewer TVs might be sold in the future. Thus it very much strengthens the argument. Please note that strengthening the argument does NOT mean strengthening anything except the conclusion..

My confusion here is: I chose E for the following reason
TVs getting expensive and hence people would outnumber TVs.
E: new features added to the TVs make them expensive and that's why fewer people would be able to buy those, outnumbering no. again
Also, C doesnt point out that people would outnumber TVs because they'd become expensive whereas the paragraph clearly says that "as a result of the increasing cost, outnumbering would happen"

Please please please help me get the GMAT perspective on this one or I'd mark a similar question wrong on the exam :(

thank you very much in advance

[tim]

you are bringing in additional assumptions when you assume that extra features will make the TVs more expensive. this is why E doesn't help. the previous discussion gives a good analysis of why C is correct..

[divineacclivity]

you are bringing in additional assumptions when you assume that extra features will make the TVs more expensive. this is why E doesn't help. the previous discussion gives a good analysis of why C is correct..

thanks Tim for your reply.

The premise concludes that the TVs would become expensive and hence people would outnumber TVs whereas option C says people would start to use other/alternative gadgets for information and hence the number of TVs would decrease and hence people would outnumber TVs.

Please help me understand this. thank you.

[RonPurewal]

thanks Tim for your reply.

The premise concludes that the TVs would become expensive and hence people would outnumber TVs whereas option C says people would start to use other/alternative gadgets for information and hence the number of TVs would decrease and hence people would outnumber TVs.

Please help me understand this. thank you.

you haven't asked an actual question here, but i would guess that the (implicit) issue is something like, "i don't think the correct answer is very closely related to the premises of the original argument."

if that is indeed what you are thinking, then that means you aren't thinking about it what it means (in the real world) to strengthen one's position/argument. a conclusion can be strengthened by anything that provides additional grounds for believing that it is true, and, in fact, supporting statements MUST come, at least to some extent, from outside the scope of the original passage. (if you remain confined to the ideas present in the original passage, you can't strengthen or weaken it; you can only recapitulate it.)

the best way to make this point is to consider a very simple example, like the following:
You hate the weather here. You would like the weather better in Dallas. So, you should move to Dallas.

it should be clear that this argument would be strengthened by any of the following, even though (in fact, not "even though" but because) they introduce completely new ideas:
* You are struggling to find work here; the economy in your field is booming in Dallas.
* Your father, who is dying and with whom you want to spend more time, lives close to Dallas.
etc.

even though this is a standardized test, it's important to approach the critical reasoning tasks from what is ultimately a common-sense perspective.
"strengthen/support an argument" is not some arcane notion whose meaning is only completely understood by the secret fraternity at gmac; instead, it means exactly the same thing on this exam as in the real world.

[divineacclivity]

you haven't asked an actual question here, but i would guess that the (implicit) issue is something like, "i don't think the correct answer is very closely related to the premises of the original argument."

if that is indeed what you are thinking, then that means you aren't thinking about it what it means (in the real world) to strengthen one's position/argument. a conclusion can be strengthened by anything that provides additional grounds for believing that it is true, and, in fact, supporting statements MUST come, at least to some extent, from outside the scope of the original passage. (if you remain confined to the ideas present in the original passage, you can't strengthen or weaken it; you can only recapitulate it.)

the best way to make this point is to consider a very simple example, like the following:
You hate the weather here. You would like the weather better in Dallas. So, you should move to Dallas.

it should be clear that this argument would be strengthened by any of the following, even though (in fact, not "even though" but because) they introduce completely new ideas:
* You are struggling to find work here; the economy in your field is booming in Dallas.
* Your father, who is dying and with whom you want to spend more time, lives close to Dallas.
etc.

even though this is a standardized test, it's important to approach the critical reasoning tasks from what is ultimately a common-sense perspective.
"strengthen/support an argument" is not some arcane notion whose meaning is only completely understood by the secret fraternity at gmac; instead, it means exactly the same thing on this exam as in the real world.

Conclusion: You surely must be a genius.
Premise: Yes that exactly was my question & many more premises I could add here :)
I'd make sure I specifically write my question so that you guys don't have to waste time pondering over the possibilities of a user's question.

And your explanation totally makes sense to me. As i alws say that it is so very easy to get your explanations through the head. I can't help but wonder if I could borrow your wisdom for my test day or better could develop a similar copy of my own :)

About the question, I think I'm used to working on the weakening questions more than the strengthening ones & that's what's making a difference that I didn't make a switch of mind. I realise that I got much more strengthening questions wrong than weakening ones.

For weakening ones, you have to attack the very argument presented.
For strengthening, support can come from some new information or a little different argument as well, just like the one you wrote for an example in your explanation.
i'd pick a part of your examples:
Argument: personX wants to shift to placeA because he doesn't like the weather at his current place.
weakening: the weather at placeA remains more or less the same as his current place throughout the year
strengthening: he's struggling to find work here; the economy in your field is booming - your example

By the way, could you please avoid using situations like the "ur father dyin example" you gave in your explanation above because one tends to imagine your explanations as one reads them because your writings surely are very engaging.

[tim]

Ron's writing is so engaging because he paints such a vivid picture. I'm guessing you won't forget this example now. :)

As for the strengthen/weaken issue, they really are two sides of the same coin. Weaken questions will need to bring in outside information just as strengthen questions will..

[divineacclivity]

Ron's writing is so engaging because he paints such a vivid picture. I'm guessing you won't forget this example now. :)

As for the strengthen/weaken issue, they really are two sides of the same coin. Weaken questions will need to bring in outside information just as strengthen questions will..

yeah :)