A study of marital relationships in which one partner's sleeping and

This is definitely an interesting question - makes one wonder about small aspects with the potential to kill marriages.

It is a fairly easy question, as questions go. The correct answer is D.

What we know from the passage:

A study of marital relationships -
- Where one partner had a different sleeping and waking cycle as compared to his/her partner
- Observation 1: such couples share fewer activities with each other
- Observation 2: such couples had more violent fights with each other
- Both observations are in comparison with couples who follow the same sleeping and waking patterns

Conclusion being made based on the study: mismatched sleeping and waking cycles between a couple can seriously jeopardise a marriage

We need to weaken the above argument:
What new information reduces our belief in the conclusion that mismatched sleeping and waking cycles between a couple can seriously jeopardise a marriage?
Given the results of the study.

When we want to weaken a causality (A is a cause of B - Mismatched S and W cycles can be a cause of jeopardy in a marriage),

1. What if we have a statement that tells us that it is some other unrelated factor altogether which causes the effect and not the given cause? For example, maybe, it is the difference in food preferences, a factor that may have nothing to do with sleeping and waking cycles, which is the real reason. So, the results of a counter-study that indicates food preferences is the real culprit and not anything else can weaken the given argument

2. What if the causality is reversed (Instead of A being a cause of B, what if we are given that B is causing A)? A statement that indicates so would also weaken our belief in the given causality. For instance, a study which indicates that couples who have violent arguments tend to avoid each other by changing their sleeping and waking cycles. This would flip the given causality and weaken our conclusion.


This is what makes option D correct. It suggests that people in unhappy (troubled/jeopardised) marriages adopt a different sleeping and waking cycle from their spouses, to express hostility. In other words, the difference in cycles is the effect of troubled marriage, rather than the other way around, which is what our conclusion is all about.


Option A is somewhat popular.


(A) Married couples in which both spouses follow the same sleeping and waking patterns also occasionally have arguments that can jeopardize the couple's marriage

The argument firstly, nowhere claims that different cycles is the only cause for a jeopardised marriage. Couples with the same cycles can have occasional arguments, even ones that can jeopardise the marriage. So, option A at best tells us that there can be other causes too. But this does not tell us anything about whether a difference in sleeping and waking cycles between spouses, in particular is indeed a cause or not (for seriously jeopardising a marriage).


Hope this helps!
Regards,
Harsha

Hello Harsha,
egmat

Here , as you have mentioned in the post above ,the causation given is " A is the cause of B " ie

(A)mismatched sleeping and waking cycles ------------>(B)can seriously jeopardize a marriage.

So , one another way to weaken this causation is by showing when A didn't happen , B happened; Option A just does that ie

(A didn't happen) Married couples with same sleeping and waking patterns -----> (B happened) also occasionally have arguments that can jeopardize the couple's marriage.

Please help

Thanks

Observation: A and B appear together (are correlated)
Conclusion: A causes B

To weaken it, you can say 'B causes A' or you can say 'Both A and B are caused by C (a third factor)'

Here we are given 'diff sleep patterns' and 'marital discord' appear together. The conclusion is that 'diff sleep pattern' causes 'marital discord.' We can weaken it in two ways:
1. By saying that actually 'marital discord' causes 'diff sleep patterns'
2. By saying that 'some job profiles' cause 'diff sleep patterns' as well as 'marital discord due to excessive stress' etc.

Saying that 'C causes B' does not weaken 'A causes B.' The conclusion does not say that A is the only cause of B. There could be other factors causing B too.
Option (A) says that other factors can cause marital discord too. It doesn't weaken our conclusion.

Hi KarishmaB ,



I agree with your point above.

But in my reasoning it's not C causes B, rather it's A didn't happen but B happened

ORIGINAL CAUSATION - mismatched sleeping and waking cycles can seriously jeopardize a marriage.

OPTION A - Married couples in which both spouses follow the same sleeping and waking patterns also occasionally have arguments that can jeopardize the couple's marriage.


If it was given , say Married couple in which both the couples have difference of opinion also can jeopardize the couple's marriage

Then in that case I would have agreed to your opinion.

Please help

Thanks

It is the same thing. The point is that 'A causes B' does not mean that B could not happen because of some other reason, any other reason or no reason.
If B happened but A did not, it does not weaken 'A causes B.' B could have happened because of some other reason (say C).
What weakens 'A causes B' is if A happened but B did not.

Take a simpler example.

Whenever I get sick (A) , my brother visits me (B).
Cause - sick (A) , Effect - visit (B)
A causes B.

My brother visited me yesterday though I was not sick yesterday.
Does it weaken the cause effect given above? No. My brother could have visited for some other reason (C) or no reason. Still, A does cause B. Something else could also cause B.
What would weaken this causation is if I get sick but my brother doesn't visit me. So if A happens but B doesn't, then the causation breaks.

Hi PriyamRathor,

Thanks for reaching out!

I made this video to try and help with this query.

Hope it helps!
Harsha

Hello Harsha egmat and KarishmaB ,

I get the point that :-

A can cause B or A causes B cannot be weakened by saying when A didn't happen , B happened

But, while solving the below OG question I came across the causality (When A didn't happen , B happened) which confused me.
Please help to resolve my doubt whether we can use the causality When A didn't happen , B happened to weaken A causes B.

I am really confused



Given-
Marriage causes people to live longer

ie (A) Marriage ---------> (B) Live longer

A causes B

Author is saying that this causality is not true , and we need to strengthen the author's argument .

So , one way to strengthen authors argument is by weakening the causality.

Correct Answer ie Option E follows the structure ,
when A didn't happen , B happened

(E) Among people who as young adults neither drink alcohol immoderately nor smoke, those who never marry live as long as those who marry.

(A didn't happen) Never marry ---------> (B happened) Live Longer.

Please help.
Regards.

LINK - https://gmatclub.com/forum/it-is-true-of-both-men-and-women-that-those-who-marry-as-young-adults-209891.html

This argument says that married people have longer lives but it is because they have fewer bad habits. So the reason for longer life is fewer bad habits, not marriage. The point is - 'marriage has no connection to longer life; fewer bad habits do'
When we want to strengthen the argument above, we need to show that 'fewer bad habits' is actually linked to 'longer life' while marriage is irrelevant.
That is done by option (E)

Note that we don't have to weaken 'marriage causes people to live longer.' If we had to weaken this, we could NOT have done it by just saying 'people with fewer bad habits live longer too.'

We have to strengthen that 'marriage has no relation to long life.' Option (E) tells us that unmarried people also live as long as married people. Then obviously marriage has no link to long life.

Conclusion: Mismatched sleeping cycles causes more marriage problems than non-mismatched sleeping cycles.
Type: Weaken

(A) Married couples in which both spouses follow the same sleeping and waking patterns also occasionally have arguments that can jeopardize the couple's marriage. This can co-exist with the conclusion of the passage. However, we need an answer that weakens the passage. Drop

(B) The sleeping and waking cycles of individuals tend to vary from season to season. Explains probable reason for change in sleeping cycles but not mismatch of sleeping cycles causing problems. Drop

(C) The individuals who have sleeping and waking cycles that differ significantly from those of their spouses tend to argue little with colleagues at work. Talks about  impact of sleeping cycles outside of marriage. Not relevant. Drop.

(D) People in unhappy marriages have been found to express hostility by adopting a different sleeping and waking cycle from that of their spouses. Shows that it's actually unhappy marriages, i.e., another cause or the marriage itself, i.e, reversal of the cause-effect relationship leading to the mismatched sleep cycles in partners. This defintely weakens the conclusion. Keep 

(E) According to a recent study, most people's sleeping and waking cycles can be controlled and modified easily. - Feasibility of modifiing sleep cycle could help in resolving issues, but doesn't explain cause-effect link. Drop