Despite all the science and massive budgets involved in mode

The argument says that superstitions are clearly a performance boost. Now of the given options, the correct one when plugged with extreme answers would either weaken or strengthen the claim strongly.

A: Since superstitions boost performance - If we answer YES to A then it weakens the arguments because clearly even when these sportspersons followed superstitions they were not able to be as successful as some of the others. IF the answer is NO then it strengthens the argument's claim because it can be argued that since these sportspersons did not follow superstitions they were at a disadvantage as compared to those tho did.

Clearly, a yes and no answer to option A has a weakening or strengthening impact on the question. These type of options in such questions are always correct.

B: Answer Yes or NO to B does not strengthen or weaken the argument.

C: If the answer to C is yes then that just means that those who do not follow superstitions must be doing something more to make them successful. It does not negate or support the fact that superstitions might boost performance. If the answer is NO, it might weaken the argument but we need an option which can both strengthen and weaken the argument when answered with extreme options.

D. The argument does not talk about self belief in any way; this choice is out of scope since it will require one to add more points to support the fact the self belief and performance might be related.

E. If the answer is yes, it does not strengthen the argument that superstitions give a performance boost. IF the answer is NO then it is still quite possible for a sportsperson to be successful even without a performance boost from superstitions. The answers to this question do not strengthen or weaken the argument.

The argument says that: "these superstitions clearly boost performance because almost all the top sportspersons across the world have some superstition or the other that they always adhere to." Thus it is hinged on the assumption that performance boost from superstitions is the only factor that helps sportspersons do better.

Hi,

I choose C as well because in C : C) Whether sportsperson who don’t have any superstitions are also as successful as the ones who do

If yes , then the argument is not acceptable as not all the top sportspersons across the world need some superstition in order to be successful

If not, then the argument is acceptable as all the top sportsperons need some supersitition in order to be successful.

I eliminate A : A) Whether sportspersons who are not as successful also have superstitions because if yes, then the argument is still acceptable because the scope of the argument is about " top sportsperon" or " successful sportsperson " not about "sportsperons who are not successful"


What is the source of this question ?

Thanks

Despite all the science and massive budgets involved in modern sports, many sportsmen and women at all levels of sport swear by superstitions or elaborate event rituals to enhance their game. Irrational as it may sound, these superstitions clearly boost performance because almost all the top sportspersons across the world have some superstition or the other that they always adhere to.

Superstition boost performance.
Premise 1> all top sportsperson across the world have some superstition.

Assumption here is : it is the "superstition " that is making them "ON TOP". So there is some connection between superstition and success.


Which of the following would most help evaluate the conclusion that superstition clearly helps sportspersons?
A) Whether sportspersons who are not as successful also have superstitions :-
Technically if there is superstition, than they had to be successful. A prove it otherwise. Some sportsmen have superstition but still they are not sucessful. THat means there is some other others factor in play. ANd we can't say that it's superstition that is making them sucessful.

A correct

C) Whether sportsperson who don’t have any superstitions are also as successful as the ones who do :- "almost all the top sportspersons across the world have some superstition or the other that they always adhere to." so we already know that there are some sportsman who are successful don't have superstition. So evaluating this won't be of much help.

I fell for C.

But now i see, why A is correct, it is test of sufficient condition.

if we want to test for sufficiency for if A (causes)-> B, we will test its contrapositive, if !B -> !A, if true, then A has indeed caused B, if false, something else is causing B and not A.

Question is testing this concept out.

if (superstitious beliefs(A) -> causes success (B)
how do we test for sufficiency?
by checking its contrapositive, if !B (not success) -> !A (superstitious beliefs) ? putting in formal words, do unsuccessful people have superstitious beliefs? - Choice (A) exactly tests this condition.

Thanks

Lets replace the word superstition with regular training at all places in this question and check if the OA still holds true

Despite all the science and massive budgets involved in modern sports, many sportsmen and women at all levels of sport swear by regular training to enhance their game. Irrational as it may sound, these regular training sessions clearly boost performance because almost all the top sportspersons across the world have some regular training regimen that they always adhere to.

Which of the following would most help evaluate the conclusion that regular training clearly helps sportspersons?

A) Whether sportspersons who are not as successful also train regularly
If the answer is Yes, it does not weaken/strengthen the argument. Most sportspersons train regularly but that doesn't guarantee an Olympic gold medal. So even though the not so successful sportsperson train as regularly, as the more successful athletes, they are not as successful because there are others factors involved. But that doesn't mean regular training does not boost performance.
If the answer is No, it still does not weaken/strengthen the argument. As there can be other factors besides regular training that makes a top sportsperson tick.
This option proves nothing really.

B) Whether there is empirical proof that regular training boosts the performance of sportspersons
Now if there is an empirical proof that regular training boosts the performance of sportspersons then we can definitively say that the argument is correct.

C) Whether sportsperson who don’t have any regular training are also as successful as the ones who do
Yes : Doesn't weaken/strengthen the argument. The sportsperson in question could be a born athlete and immensely talented than the ones who need regular training.
No: Same as A, there can be other factors involved. So doesn't weaken/strengthen.

D) Whether regular training helps boost an individual’s self belief dramatically
Out of scope
E) Whether all successful sportspersons across the world have regular training
Out of scope

Based on this I believe B is a better option than A. Please let me know if my reasoning is wrong.

Super ---> Success

Superstition here is sufficient condition, but not a necessary one. So, even if sports person who don’t have any superstitions aren't successful, it doesn't break the argument. What will break the argument - even if superstition isn't present, sports person is successful.


A - ~Success ----> ~Super & ~Sucess --->Super
Supports and Weakens the argument

D - ~Super ---> Sucess (No effect)
~Super ---->~Sucess (Supports)
So just support, can't weaken the argument.

Also intuitively, if someone says superstition leads to success. You normally reply "look superstition sometimes don't lead to success (A)", so watch out on your logic.

Analogy: Milk leads to growth.
Option A- People who drink milk are not growing - breaks.
Option D- People are not drinking milk, then also growing. This doesn't break the argument, as there could be n number of ways to boost to growth. Milk is one reliable one. (sufficient one)

Despite all the science and massive budgets involved in modern sports, many sportsmen and women at all levels of sport swear by superstitions or elaborate event rituals to enhance their game. Irrational as it may sound, these superstitions clearly boost performance because almost all the top sportspersons across the world have some superstition or the other that they always adhere to.

Which of the following would most help evaluate the conclusion that superstition clearly helps sportspersons?

A) Whether sportspersons who are not as successful also have superstitions

C) Whether sportsperson who don’t have any superstitions are also as successful as the ones who do

all the top sportsperson across the world have superstition :- conclusion => it is because of superstition.
How will prove that this is wrong.
if someone who are superstitious but still not successful that will prove that this is not because of superstition and that's what A is doing.

Whether sportsperson who don’t have any superstitions are also as successful as the ones who do => "PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE SUPERSTITION" is out of scope for this question.

We have to concentrate upon PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUPERSTITION.
so A.

Hello expert,
I’m m not sure whether it is a good question, but I saw a long thread of contention below, so I think it should deserve your attention. Thanks in advance.
Pls help have a look at and share some your ideas? Especially between A and C. I donot know how should I comprehend the word “also” in A. Does it mean “successful sportperson have superstition too”?

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.