Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who play video games

[VARUN007]

Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who play video games on a regular basis are three times as likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome as are adolescents who do not play video games. Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents.

The doctor’s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?

The majority of federal legislators would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of video games to minors.
Not all adolescents who play video games on a regular basis suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.
Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.
Most parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.
The regular playing of video games by adolescents does not produce such beneficial effects as better hand-eye coordination and improved reaction time.

[Guest]

PLS EXPLAIN THE ANS IN DETAIL

[Guest]

Doc says playing video games leads (at a rate 3 times more than those who dont play) to XYZ in minors (which we need to prevent). Legistaltion prohibits the sales of video games to minors will help curb this.

He assumes that because of Legislation minors will not be able to buy video games and so will not play video games.

But, he has made a mistake in assuming this - for example there could be a huge black market from which 96 percent of video games ar esold so this legislation will be of little help (hypothetical, nt stated in the q).

Similarly, 99 percent of these minors have parents who will, being adults, buy the games for their minor children when children ask them to, after asking them to return the favor by indulging in some household chores. If this happens then again legislation will be useless. So the doc is assuming A-No black market exists and B-Most parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children

[esledge]

I like the explanation given by Guest--putting yourself in the situation and asking "what if" can be very helpful.

Another approach is to test whether the argument truly depends on the suggested assumptions. NEGATE the assumption (as in the all-caps words below), and if the conclusion collapses, you need that original assumption.

(A) If the majority of federal legislators would NOT vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of video games to minors, the doctor could still be right that legislation would help curb carpal tunnel.

(B) If ALL adolescents who play video games on a regular basis suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome, then the doctor could still be right.

(C) If adolescents can develop carpal tunnel syndrome from OTHER ACTIVITIES, the doctor could still be right that video games are the main culprit.

(D) If most parents WOULD purchase video games for their adolescent children, then the doctor is WRONG that legislation would have the intended effect. The doctor's argument therefore depends on (D), and it is the correct answer.

(E) If playing of video games by adolescents DOES produce such beneficial effects as better hand-eye coordination and improved reaction time, then the doctor could still be right about the carpal tunnel issue.

[akhp77]

I am really confused about A and D.
D looks good but A also looks good to me.

I am unable to reject A even I saw that explanation in MGMAT CAT.

Please explain.

[tim]

The doctor is implying that IF we passed this legislation it would have the desired effect. A provides support to the idea that the IF part of the doctor's statement might happen. Strengthening the IF part (we call this the hypothesis) is NEVER a valid way to strengthen a conclusion or contribute a necessary assumption. Let me give you a simple example:

If it rains today then i will be sad.

My friend comes up and says he is sure it won't rain today.

This doesn't change the fact that IF it rains i will be sad.

[pradeepchandy]

I think D is wrong

negating D says most parents will buy video games for children
Or in other words
zero or atleast one parent will not buy video game for there children ,

If its zero then I agree answer is D
but if atleast one parent does not buy -

then legislation still helps to curb atleast one child from getting carpal syndrome

A necessary assumption should take care of all cases

I think if option D said "All parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children." then its correct

[tim]

Pradeep,
Wrong. We are looking for SOME benefit here, and we can realize some benefit if even a few parents refused to buy games for their children, because at least those children will experience reduced risk of injury. Yes, your preferred wording is even better, but remember you’re looking for the best answer among the five on the page, not the best POSSIBLE answer..

[devarajan_280]

Hi

Can you please explain why Option C is incorrect ?

In this question, the conclusion of the doctor is "Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help CURB this painful wrist condition among adolescents. "

Now Option C "Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome." is an assumption the doctor seems to be making. the legislation would fail to CURB the syndrome if adolescents continue to develop this condition through some other means

I am in agreement with Option D (as the answer) and all other choices are outright wrong .

Appreciate the help . .

Regards
Dev

[jnelson0612]

Dev, did you read Emily's post above? It discusses why C is wrong. Please take a look and let us know if you need further clarification.

[aagar2003]

Dev, did you read Emily's post above? It discusses why C is wrong. Please take a look and let us know if you need further clarification.

In C, If playing video games is the only way to develop CTS, then the legislation should aim at curbing the playing of video games. I don't understand why would you say this is incorrect. C is the correct option as it directly mentions the main assumption of PLAYING video games is what causes exposure and hence the CTS.

Also, in D can't the minors obtain the video games directly. The queston does not say anything about childern buying the games themeselves or using some other means. Also, It says about purchase and not playing. If the video games are not purchased, then can be RENTED keeping the exposure to children. D is INCORRECT.

Correct me where am I wrong?

[messi10]

Hi Ashish,

C is a tempting choice but not as good as D.
In the explaining this, I am assuming that you are aware of LEN. If not, please post back.

Remember that the correct negated statement will invalidate the conclusion. Our conclusion here is: "Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents". Please also note the language used here: "would help to curb". Its not a strong conclusion that says that its trying to eradicate the syndrome altogether.

As Emily has used LEN, I will also do the same but in a slightly different way by just adding a NOT:

Choice C: Playing video games is NOT the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.

So there are other ways to develop the syndrome. Bear in mind, that this negated statement does not tell us that those other ways are bigger or smaller causes of carpal tunnel syndrome. It just states that there are other ways. Our conclusion does not fall apart. It is still true that federal legislation would help curb the syndrome as video games are one of the causes. Note that if the conclusion was to eradicate the syndrome then this would have been a very strong answer choice.

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

Note that there is a boundary word in this option: most. This implies that most parents will purchase video games for their kids. Most kids will play video games. Most kids will still end up developing the syndrome. Does the conclusion fall apart? Yes, the federal legislation will fail to curb the syndrome.

Hope this helps

Regards

Sunil

[aagar2003]

Conclusion: "Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help CURB this painful wrist condition among adolescents".

using LEN:
(C) If adolescents can develop CTS from OTHER ACTIVITIES, the doctor could still be right that video games are the main culprit.

I think Emily was not explicit in her answer and highlighted which is the main culprit - other activities or VGs.

Its not a strong conclusion that says that its trying to eradicate the syndrome altogether.

(C) Playing video games is NOT the only way an adolescent can develop CTS.

Other ways can be either bigger or smaller causes of CTS. It just states that there are other ways. Our conclusion does not fall apart. It is still true that federal legislation would help curb the syndrome as video games are one of the causes. Note that if the conclusion was to eradicate the syndrome then this would have been a very strong answer choice.

Now this makes it clear why C is incorrect. Sunil (varun_783) can you please refer me to the post explaining LEN. Is the strategy mentioned in MGMAT CR book? Are there specific question types that need to be solved using it or only some of them?

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

Note that there is a boundary word in this option: most. This implies that most parents will purchase video games for their kids. Most kids will play video games. Most kids will still end up developing the syndrome. Does the conclusion fall apart? Yes, the federal legislation will fail to curb the syndrome.

(D) If most parents WOULD purchase video games for their adolescent children, then the doctor is WRONG that legislation would have the intended effect. The doctor's argument therefore depends on (D), and it is the correct answer.

BTW this question was not that straightforward. I looked at another approach (Courtesy: GMAT Pill http://www.gmatpill.com/page/78/) for solving:

In the 3 part reasoning chain:
1) Sales of VGs -> 2) playing VGs -> 3) CTS
the doctor’s claim is that getting rid of #1, you will no longer have #3.
Answer (D) describes the assumption between #1 and #2.
Answer (C) describes the assumption between #2 and #3.

Since the doctor’s claim begins further to the left on the reasoning chain (#1), the assumption must include #1. Although (C) seems like a legitimate assumption to me, it is an assumption related to a different part of the reasoning chain (#2 and #3).

So it appears because of where we are on this reasoning chain, the answer is not (C) but rather (D).

[messi10]

Hi Ashish,

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

Please note that Emily's reasoning was not unclear in my opinion. She was simply a step ahead. She was not explicit in her answer rightfully, because in that assumption it was simply stating the existence of other causes not rating them.

GMATPill explanation is interesting but I don't know whether this a
is a general strategy or just a logic used for this question. To me, LEN works well in situations like this where we are stuck between two answer choices. While both C and D were difficult to choose, once LEN was applied we could clearly see that the correct one broke down the conclusion. There was no doubt left after that.

Hope this helps

Regards

Sunil

[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?