himanshu0123 wrote:
super confuse b/w B] and C]
C] is pretty straightforward
but B] is quite complex as strenthener. What framework should I use to understand the right answer. I am finding B] difficult to comprehend.
This is a "correlation —> causation" argument. These arguments, unlike almost everything else in CR, can actually be approached systematically.
This framework is exhaustive:
If a correlation exists between X and Y things, there are exactly three possible reasons for the correlation:
1/ Changes in X cause changes in Y.
2/ Changes in Y cause changes in X.
3/ Some third thing Z causes changes in both X and Y.(If the correlation is positive, the "changes" here will go in the same direction—i.e., an increase in X will correspond to an increase in Y, and likewise for decreases. If the correlation is negative, the changes will go in opposite directions.)
If you're asked to WEAKEN an argument that concludes one of these three from a correlation, the weakener should be one of the other two.
If you're asked to STRENGTHEN such an argument, the correct answer should RULE OUT one of the other two (not both; GMAC answer choices will not have more than one functional effect).In this problem,
X = attendance at support groups and/or counseling
Y = chemo side effects & recovery time(These are NEGATIVELY correlated. As one goes up, the other goes down.)
This argument's conclusion is saying #1 (changes in X drive changes in Y). So... all we need to do is find a choice that represents #2 or #3.
Choice B says that worsening health does
NOT cause patients to attend psychological support resources less often.
In other words,
choice B says that #2 is false. That's the answer we want.