|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
271
[0], given: 36
|
I have seen many arguments where causality to be destroyed. [#permalink]
 30 Jul 2010, 00:38
Question Stats:
61% (02:11) correct
38% (01:12) wrong based on 2 sessions
I have seen many arguments where causality to be destroyed. I will like to share an odd one where its the opposite. Source : KaplanAggressive fertility treatments are not responsible for the rise in the incidence of twin births. Rather, this increase can be attributed to the fact that women are waiting longer to become mothers. Statistically, women over 35 are more likely to conceive twins, and these women now comprise a greater percentage of women giving birth than ever before. The argument above is flawed in that it ignores the possibility that A. many women over 35 who give birth to twins are not first-time mothers B. women over 35 are not the only women who give birth to twins C. the correlation between fertility treatments and the increased incidence of multiple births may be a coincidence D. on average, women over 35 are no more likely to conceive identical twins than other women are E. women over 35 are more likely to resort to the sorts of fertility treatments that tend to yield twin births OA after the dicussion 
_________________
Please press kudos if you like my post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 3
|
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink]
30 Jul 2010, 02:32
The author concludes that aggressive fertility treatments are not responsible for rise in the incidence of twin births. Rather it is attributed to the fact that women are waiting longer to become mothers. This is a simple causal flaw argument. There is a correlation between the rise in the incedence of twin births and women are waiting longer to become mothers. This correlation is CAUSAL LINK. However, the fact that two things are related does not prove that one caused the other. Here aggressive fertility is an UNDERRATED CAUSE. There4 now we understand what the flaw is and where the gap exists in the argument. Looking at all the possibilities we can rule out the following- A-->may be true, but wont make any impact on the argument. Cant fill the gap. B-->a general statement. cant fill the gap. C-->OOS. Argument is not concerned about multiple births. D-->contradicting statement. Argument has explicitly stated that women over 35 are more likely to conceive twins E logically fills the gap because the argument ignores the fact that woman who are above 35 and when they resort to the sorts of fertility treatment could be the reason for rise in the incidence of twin births.
_________________
consider cudos if you like my post
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
23
[0], given: 10
|
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink]
30 Jul 2010, 02:50
IMO E.
Premise: Women over 35 are predisposed to having twins.
Premise: Women over 35 constitute an increasing percentage of women giving birth.
Conclusion: Fertility treatments aren't responsible for the increase in the number of twins.
If you insert E as a new premise, it successfully invalidates the conlcusion and weakens the overall argument.
Last edited by Gryphon on 30 Jul 2010, 02:52, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
271
[0], given: 36
|
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink]
30 Jul 2010, 02:51
That was close. But didn't close the deal But here argument wants to break away from causal relationship. To weaken it you have to re-establish the causal link. That's the catch. tryingharder wrote: This is a simple causal flaw argument. There is a correlation between the rise in the incedence of twin births and women are waiting longer to become mothers. This correlation is CAUSAL LINK. However, the fact that two things are related does not prove that one caused the other. Here aggressive fertility is an UNDERRATED CAUSE.
_________________
Please press kudos if you like my post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 3
|
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink]
30 Jul 2010, 03:11
nusmavrik wrote: That was close. But didn't close the deal But here argument wants to break away from causal relationship. To weaken it you have to re-establish the causal link. That's the catch. tryingharder wrote: This is a simple causal flaw argument. There is a correlation between the rise in the incedence of twin births and women are waiting longer to become mothers. This correlation is CAUSAL LINK. However, the fact that two things are related does not prove that one caused the other. Here aggressive fertility is an UNDERRATED CAUSE.
thnx 4 the clue budy this time it has to be C. No other choice looks like a possible possibility. hehe 
_________________
consider cudos if you like my post
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
271
[0], given: 36
|
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink]
30 Jul 2010, 03:17
Sorry don't mean to change your answer. You stumbled upon the correct answer. Conclusion: Fertility treatments aren't responsible for the increase in the number of twins. Here the arg is non causal. E makes the arg causal - hence weakens it! C helps the argument. It strengthens it. tryingharder wrote: thnx 4 the clue budy this time it has to be C. No other choice looks like a possible possibility. hehe _________________
Please press kudos if you like my post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 3
|
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink]
30 Jul 2010, 03:35
nusmavrik wrote: Sorry don't mean to change your answer. You stumbled upon the correct answer. Conclusion: Fertility treatments aren't responsible for the increase in the number of twins. Here the arg is non causal. E makes the arg causal - hence weakens it! C helps the argument. It strengthens it. tryingharder wrote: thnx 4 the clue budy this time it has to be C. No other choice looks like a possible possibility. hehe trust me not a fluke, i was tinking on the right lines and first time i was 200% sure about E. I know that C strengthens but then thought that there might be some catch. infact i was quite confused before picking C. nywyz..got it now  and good to know that E is correct 
_________________
consider cudos if you like my post
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 338
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 7
|
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink]
30 Jul 2010, 04:10
Even I go for E . What is the OA? E? :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 12
Kudos [?]:
271
[0], given: 36
|
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink]
30 Jul 2010, 04:38
You will love the Kaplan's OE. Its lengthy. Takeaway : Non-causal argument can be destroyed by the assumption which establishes the causal relationship. 19. (E) Reading the question stem first (always a fine idea) for question 19 warns you to be on the alert for something the author has overlooked. The author argues against the notion that fertility treatments are responsible for the increased incidence of twins by presenting an alternative explanation—that the increase has occurred because more women are having children later in life, and these older women are statistically more likely to bear twins. This sounds plausible, but remember the key questions in GMAT causal arguments: Can the causality be reversed? Is coincidence confused for cause? Could another cause have been at work? If women over 35 are much more likely to use fertility treatments that often result in twin births, then it’s possible that the twin births among older women are in fact due to fertility treatments. The problem (E) points out is
not that the “alternative explanation” is illogical or
impossible, but that it might be dependent on the
very explanation it’s supposed to replace.
_________________
Please press kudos if you like my post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2010
Posts: 194
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 13
|
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink]
31 Jul 2010, 14:01
E........isn't it .according to kaplan ........was relieved not to C..it would have had weirdest of explanation if it were C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 447
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 112
|
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink]
31 Jul 2010, 21:53
cruel one for me .....picked A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Affiliations: Volunteer Operation Smile India, Creative Head of College IEEE branch (2009-10), Chief Editor College Magazine (2009), Finance Head College Magazine (2008)
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 472
Location: India
WE2: Entrepreneur (E-commerce - The Laptop Skin Vault)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Marketing (Other)
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
73
[0], given: 24
|
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink]
12 Sep 2010, 04:18
Tough question
_________________
Kidchaos
http://www.laptopskinvault.com
Follow The Laptop Skin Vault on:
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheLaptopSkinVault
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/LaptopSkinVault
Consider Kudos if you think the Post is good
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to change. It's not. - Dr. Seuss
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 138
Schools: Wharton,Insead,LBS,IMD,Kellog,Haas,Duke
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 13
|
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink]
12 Sep 2010, 04:28
tough one.... i called the C...................  hmmm
_________________
Whatever you do, Do it SINCERELY!!!
GOD help those who help themselves....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Watch Causality
[#permalink]
12 Sep 2010, 04:28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
