Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who play video games

[aagar2003]

I have read up on LEN in the MGMAT CR guide under the Assumptions chapter.

I read the LEN (Least Extreme Negatation) strategy. But then need to clarify on the choice D.
(D) MOST parents WOULD refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.
Are these correct as per LEN?
1. NO parent would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.
2. MOST parents WOULD SOMETIMES refuse to purchae video games for their adolescent children.

If I am incorrect, what are the LEN versions for MOST and WOULD?

[messi10]

Hi Ashish,

I am not an expert on LEN techniques. My suggestion is not to become mechanical in your thinking by looking for LEN versions of every word. Try and look at the meaning of the assumption and then see where you can insert the words to negate the assumption in the least extreme way - least being the key word. Practice will make you better.

1. NO parent would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.

This sounds a bit too extreme to me. Also, I don't think changing the number of parents is the way to negate this particular assumption. The assumption can be negated by negating the action - "refusal" and that will have more desired effect. As the book suggests, "not necessarily" is a safer way to negate an argument.

Most parents would not necessarily refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.

Its not great English but you get the idea.

MOST parents WOULD SOMETIMES refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.

Can't comment on this one as I can't figure out whether its ok or not. Seems ok but I would personally prefer NOT necessarily

Hope this helps

Regards

Sunil

[jnelson0612]

Instead of NO, I think you could say "FEW parents would refuse to purchase the video games" and that would make it a little less extreme and more accurate.

[rjdubai]

The answer to this question is incorrect.

Regardless of whether the doctor assumes MOST parents would refuse to purchase video games, or if he assumes A FEW, there would still be a net negative effect on the number of cases of CT. Even if A FEW parents (less than MOST) refused to buy their kids video games, there would still be a reduction in the number of CT cases, which satisfies the doctor's argument.

However, "legislation" is a term used for both enacted and PROPOSED laws, so "Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb this painful wrist condition" would require passage of said legislation in order to have an effect. If "the majority of federal legislators would NOT vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of video games to minors" then the legislation would fail and there would be no effect, meaning no reduction of CT cases.

A can be tested and has effect/no effect. When D is tested it is some effect/more effect, both of which work for the argument. A is the right choice.

[tim]

Sorry, you're reading too much into the term "legislation". Now what I need you to understand is this: You can argue this point or you can accept the truth of what I'm saying. Your job in studying for the GMAT is not to argue with the questions but rather to see if you can understand whatever reasoning the GMAT uses to reach its answers. You will NEVER get any points for disagreeing with the answers, no matter how right you think you are. You will ONLY get points if you learn to think like the question writers rather than disagreeing with them.

[rjdubai]

Tim,

Can you please help me understand why answer D is not a "One Word Wrong" trap? I have been reviewing my practice test and understand everything I did wrong except this question, which seems more like A every time I look at it.

This was one of 3 CR questions I missed on this first test and the other two were due to oversights that I now understand. I would appreciate an opportunity to learn what my mistake was because if I was presented with this problem again I would offer the same answer.

The explanation for A is "Majority consensus in the legislature has no bearing on whether the recommended legislation would actually help to curb carpal tunnel syndrome." Am I making a real world assumption by assuming that a majority is necessary to pass a law, which is not stated in the argument? Should I have not assumed there is a legislature at all and instead thought that legislation could be passed some other way? Moreover, if the law DOES go to a legislature and it fails to pass, how can it curb CT?

On the other hand, there is an insurmountable flaw with D. If fewer than "most" parents refused to buy video games, would CT be reduced? If "Some Parents" or even "a handful of parents" refused to buy video games, wouldn't that reduce the number of CT cases and satisfy the doctor's hypothesis? The doctor says CT will be curbed, meaning restrained. The doctor does not say CT will be eliminated or even brought down to the level of the general population. If the ratio of cases even goes from 3:1 to 2.99:1 as a result of this legislation then the doctor's hypothesis can be considered correct. The doctor would not require "most parents" cooperation to meet that standard.

Also, can you tell me what you mean by "reading too much into the term legislation?" How should I look at that term differently to better answer the question?

[RonPurewal]

Rjdubai, if your argument depends on mathematical nit-picking, then it's a non-argument.
The point of these problems is to understand the interaction among different statements/concepts, not to probe mathematical extremes.

The point of this problem is that the plan depends on stopping sales to minors. If you notice that sales to parents will get around that hurdle, then, there you go.
If you negate an assumption, you should have a MAJOR FLAW in the argument. Not a tiny mathematical objection.

More generally, CR should never involve nit-picking. Never ever ever. The problems with things should be big problems, not trifles.

[RonPurewal]

legislation could be passed some other way? Moreover, if the law DOES go to a legislature and it fails to pass, how can it curb CT?

"Legislation" means "the law". If a bill has not yet been passed, or has been defeated, then it's not "legislation".

Here's an analogy:
If I had a car that could go 500 miles on a gallon of gas, I could drive to Las Vegas for $3.50.
or, if you don't like the word "If",
A car that could go 500 miles on a gallon of gas would allow me to drive to Las Vegas for $3.50.
--> The truth of these statements depends on the current price of gasoline, but does not depend at all on whether such a car has been (or ever could be) produced.

"Legislation", here, plays the same role as "a car that gets 500 mi/gal". It's a hypothetical"”and perhaps it's unlikely"”but that doesn't have any effect on the discussion of its (hypothetical) consequences.

If the verb were "will", not "would", then you'd have an implication that the bill has actually become law, or that the car has been produced. But, it's "would". No such implication.

[rjdubai]

I concede the point, though I still can't say I understand the logic of this question.

[RonPurewal]

I concede the point, though I still can't say I understand the logic of this question.

It seems that you're fixated on the quantifiers ("most" and so forth). Try ignoring them, so that you can better focus on the big-picture reasoning.

If that doesn't fly, just walk away from the problem for a while. If you look at it again in a few weeks, it might suddenly be really obvious. Our brains are weird that way.

[naval.sheth]

Still another doubt with D

Lets Negate D

Most parents would NOT refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.

What if I go with this thinking ....

Even if parents would NOT refuse to purchase video games and infact buy the video games for their child , Still there are chances that adolescent themself or their siblings might stop the adolescent to play video game hearing the ban.

Now though D is negated still conclusion does not breaks apart. ie Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games is still helping minors to curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents.

[jnelson0612]

Still another doubt with D

Lets Negate D

Most parents would NOT refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.

What if I go with this thinking ....

Even if parents would NOT refuse to purchase video games and infact buy the video games for their child , Still there are chances that adolescent themself or their siblings might stop the adolescent to play video game hearing the ban.

Now though D is negated still conclusion does not breaks apart. ie Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games is still helping minors to curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents.

By making this argument, you are saying that even though adolescents are buying and playing video games so much that they are giving themselves a painful condition, once there is a ban in place they will voluntarily stop playing, even if there parents are fine with them playing and are in fact purchasing the games for them. So their own personal pain doesn't change their behavior, but a government ban does? I think that you are going WAY out on a limb to make that argument. This sort of reasoning hasn't worked at all in the cases of other substances banned by sale to minors, such as alcohol. :-)

Instead, stick to the basis of the argument:

Conclusion: The ban prohibiting the sale of video games to minors will help keep them from getting hurt by them.
WHY?
Premise: Minors won't be able to buy the games.
Assumption: There will be nowhere else for them to access the games.

Looking at it this way, do you see a better answer than the original answer? :-)

[nitinsinghpec]

Hi Tim,Emily,Ron?

Im trying to related this with the cause n effect question ? and assuming an alternate cause to be the correct answer choice.

Option C , suggest the alternate cause, So , i believe to be the correct assumption.

Or Is it the alternate cause (weakner) is not a potential assumption . These two are different thing?

If the question was to find a possible weakener then alternate cause (Option C) could be the correct answer?

Can you correct my line of thoughts.

Regards

Nitin Singh