A neuron needs to travel to the place in the brain

Hi Folks

I was wondering if we could discuss other options as well.

Please share your views!

Thanks!

kindly tell ur specific doubt so that i can discuss that choice in particular

How are "childhood epilepsy or mental retardation" connected to "schizophrenia and the learning disorder dyslexia"?

Cause - Effect
Mutations misplace neurons -> misplaced neurons can cause disorder
reversal
disorder affects mutations
Hence A

Hi guys!

My analysis is below:

Conc: Misguided Ns are a "partial" a cause for Schi and the learning disorder Dys.
P1&2: Not all Ns are successful in their journey to other parts of the B to do their job.
P3: Researchers: only 1/3 of Ns reach destination.
P4: Some cells die during the development of Ns.
P5: Mut in Gs that control migration of N creates areas of misplaced or odd Ns --> cause disorders: Child E & Mental R

Pre-thinking assumptions:
-there are other partial causes (aside from misguided Ns) for disorders.
-Disorders don't have effect in Mut in Genes that creates ares of misplaced or odd N. (No reversal causation)

A) Correct!. If negated breaks the conclusion apart. Aligned with 2nd assumption
B) Irrelevant. If Genetic factors are not a significant cause of D, there might be other causes along with misguided N.
C) Incorrect. It is invalidating a premise. We have to take premises as 100% reliable information.
D) Opposite. This choice actually kind of weakens the conclusion. It says that N are the only factor affecting disorders. But, according to the argument, misguided N are partially responsible for disorders.
E) OFS. Not concern about people with no disorders. Not mention in argument. we can not assume something about this group of people

Any feedback about the Answer choices analysis??
Thanks!

Cause & Effect argument: X causes Y (Premise) and hence X causes Z (Conclusion) what is the assumption here? - Z should not cause X

Choice C perfectly helps to break the conclusion when negated by saying it is the disorder in a person that actually affects the mutations in the genes of that person.

Just restarted my GMAT life. KUDOs please

Hi! why does C invadilate the premise? in the passages, it says that Scientists think that only a third reach their destination.

Hi,
I am unable to understand...I understood the cause effect..Mutations mispace neurons which cause disorder...Didnot understand the reversal. Option A says ....disorder doesnot affect mutations....Here I am lost.Can you please help???

1. What does the passage say?
"mutations in genes" -----> "bad neurons" ---> "disorder"

2. What does option A say?
"disorder" does NOT cause "mutations in genes" and thus does not cause "bad neurons".

If we negate option A, we get this:
"disorder" -----> "mutations in genes" ----> "bad neurons".

So the chain in item 1 does not stand. Conclusion falls apart.
"mutations in genes" -----> "bad neurons" ---> "disorder"
"disorder" -----> "mutations in genes" ----> "bad neurons".
These are reversal chains.

So option A is an answer.

ARGUMENT
[con] misguided neurons are PARTLY responsible for disorders; [prem] because mutations in the genes create areas of misplaced or oddly formed neurons that can cause disorders.

ASSUMPTION
assumes that mutations in the genes create such neurons that cause such disorders [mutations = bad neurons = disorders]; and that the inverse is not true [disorders = mutations = bad neurons].

B. not mentioned, irrelevant; out.
C. "scientists THINK that only 1/3 reach their destination" the author assumes that 1/3 is a possibility, but not a certainty, thus we cannot assume that 2/3 do not reach their destination; out.
D. "misguided neurons are PARTLY responsible" thus other factors might exist; out.
E. "create areas that CAN cause disorders" doesn't mean there aren't any such areas; out.

Answer (A)

A doesn't seem to follow for me. "A disorder in a person does not affect the mutations in the genes in that person" -- gene formation comes before the development of a person... so there will be no way "disorder" comes before "gene formation". it does not need to be assumed?

This is not a valid question. When an argument claims that X is "partly responsible" for Y, that doesn't mean they are assuming Y cannot cause X. In fact, it's quite normal to see loops of causation. After all, isn't that where war comes from? X attacks Y because Y attacked X because X antagonized Y," etc.

Additionally, necessary assumptions should not generalize from the narrow cases in question to all cases. If I think that my cousin missed my birthday party because they made other plans, that doesn't mean that no one ever makes other plans because they missed a social event.

Overall, the author of the question seems to have mixed up assumption and strengthen. There are also other flaws that get in the way of A working as an answer, but I'm not sure I need to pile them all on. Rather, I'll repeat my usual advice that you are best off learning verbal from official questions, and that in some cases, random "fan-made" questions may actually impede your learning.