Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 24 Apr 2014, 14:36

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

I have seen many arguments where causality to be destroyed.

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 36

GMAT Tests User
I have seen many arguments where causality to be destroyed. [#permalink] New post 29 Jul 2010, 23:38
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

60% (02:14) correct 40% (01:17) wrong based on 30 sessions
I have seen many arguments where causality to be destroyed. I will like to share an odd one where its the opposite. Source : Kaplan

Aggressive 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 :wink:
_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount CodesKnewton GMAT Discount CodesManhattan GMAT Discount Codes
Manager
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 3

Re: Watch Causality [#permalink] New post 30 Jul 2010, 01:32
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
Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 116
Location: United States
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 10

GMAT Tests User
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink] New post 30 Jul 2010, 01:50
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, 01:52, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 36

GMAT Tests User
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink] New post 30 Jul 2010, 01:51
That was close. :wink: 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
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 3

Re: Watch Causality [#permalink] New post 30 Jul 2010, 02:11
nusmavrik wrote:
That was close. :wink: 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 :lol:
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

Director
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 36

GMAT Tests User
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink] New post 30 Jul 2010, 02:17
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 :lol:

_________________

Please press kudos if you like my post.

Manager
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Posts: 150
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 3

Re: Watch Causality [#permalink] New post 30 Jul 2010, 02:35
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 :lol:



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 :-D
and good to know that E is correct :P
_________________

consider cudos if you like my post

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Jun 2010
Posts: 335
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 7

Re: Watch Causality [#permalink] New post 30 Jul 2010, 03:10
Even I go for E . What is the OA? E? :D
Director
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: Chicago Booth Class of 2015
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 995
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 36

GMAT Tests User
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink] New post 30 Jul 2010, 03:38
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
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2010
Posts: 194
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 13

GMAT Tests User
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink] New post 31 Jul 2010, 13:01
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
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 443
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 112

Re: Watch Causality [#permalink] New post 31 Jul 2010, 20:53
cruel one for me .....picked A
Current Student
User avatar
Affiliations: Volunteer Operation Smile India, Creative Head of College IEEE branch (2009-10), Chief Editor College Magazine (2009), Finance Head College Magazine (2008)
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 471
Location: India
WE2: Entrepreneur (E-commerce - The Laptop Skin Vault)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Marketing (Other)
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 24

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
Re: Watch Causality [#permalink] New post 12 Sep 2010, 03:18
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
Manager
User avatar
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] New post 12 Sep 2010, 03:28
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, 03:28
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
New posts I have seen/heard too many different ways to do probability mpv52302 0 22 Jan 2005, 09:06
New posts I have seen/heard too many different ways to do probability mpv52302 0 01 Feb 2005, 13:06
New posts 1 I have seen some questions where even though siddhans 4 30 May 2011, 17:26
New posts 3 Experts publish their posts in the topic Understanding Causal Arguments BeckyRobinsonTPR 0 13 Sep 2013, 14:03
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies. New 2 Experts publish their posts in the topic Understanding Causal Arguments BeckyRobinsonTPR 0 13 Sep 2013, 14:03
Display posts from previous: Sort by

I have seen many arguments where causality to be destroyed.

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.