In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 Jan 2017, 06:16

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 78
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 1

In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 May 2010, 23:14
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

33% (02:19) correct 67% (00:42) wrong based on 15 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly before broadcasts began there, a study was made of children's behavior. A similar study in the same community, after two years of TV, showed that the aggression rate among children of this age had increased by 160%. The conclusion drawn was that TV plays an important role in generating aggressive behavior in children. A second study, covering the same years, was made in two similar communities that had had television for decades. This study showed no change in the aggression rate from 1973 to 1975.

The results of the second study:

A) suggest that the prevalence of violent themes in TV programming may be explained by the tendencies toward violence that are deeply-rooted in human nature.

B) indicate that different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli.

C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure.

D) support the conclusion drawn from the first study.

E) disprove the conclusion drawn from the first study.
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Posts: 297
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 131 [0], given: 0

Re: TV and childrens behaviour [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 May 2010, 23:33
IMHO D, by POE.
Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 897
Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 28

Kudos [?]: 648 [0], given: 18

Re: TV and childrens behaviour [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2010, 00:18
It should be E.
Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 120
Schools: Dalhousie School of Business (Corporate Residency MBA)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 38 [1] , given: 8

Re: TV and childrens behaviour [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2010, 05:32
1
KUDOS
I'm going with C... it's a tricky one though! Explanations below:

nilesh376 wrote:
In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly before broadcasts began there, a study was made of children's behavior. A similar study in the same community, after two years of TV, showed that the aggression rate among children of this age had increased by 160%. The conclusion drawn was that TV plays an important role in generating aggressive behavior in children. A second study, covering the same years, was made in two similar communities that had had television for decades. This study showed no change in the aggression rate from 1973 to 1975.

The results of the second study:

A) suggest that the prevalence of violent themes in TV programming may be explained by the tendencies toward violence that are deeply-rooted in human nature. This gets way out of scope I think.

B) indicate that different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli. I'm not convinced of this one, because while the stimuli is similar (TV) the exposure rate is entirely different.

C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure. This is the only answer that keys in on that crucial distinction that Study 2 looked at towns that "had had television for decades." Short term exposure allegedly brought up the aggression rate by 160%. Long term exposure showed "no change." A.k.a. "no effect." In terms of the exact wording: "no more severe effects than short-term exposure," basically this comes down to 0% < 160%. I believe, through process of elimination and logic that is the right answer.

D) support the conclusion drawn from the first study. Can't be, first: there was no increase in aggression. Second, the second study used towns that had had TV for decades whereas the first study used towns that had just adopted it.

E) disprove the conclusion drawn from the first study. The word "disprove" should be a big flag here. The first study's conclusion was that "TV plays an important role in generating aggressive behavior in children." Note it doesn't specify the when or how TV does it, just that it does. Since study two looked at towns with a different exposure rate it'd be nearly impossible to compare the phenomenon, much less disprove it.
Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 897
Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 28

Kudos [?]: 648 [0], given: 18

Re: TV and childrens behaviour [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2010, 06:23
dalmba: I think you are right.

E is too extreme. I think the key is 'generating aggression' and not something like increasing aggression.
In the second study, the aggression rate was constant. So the kids WERE aggressive to a certain extent. Hence, the second study cannot disprove the conclusion that TV generates aggression.

Good question nilesh. OA?
Manager
Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Posts: 99
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

Re: TV and childrens behaviour [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2010, 08:27
I also go for C
SVP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1558
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 579 [0], given: 6

Re: TV and childrens behaviour [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2010, 08:48
me pick is (C) for the same reasons mentioned above.

what is the OA?
Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
Posts: 120
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 169

Re: TV and childrens behaviour [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Jan 2011, 06:04
OA is D. LSAT question http://www.lsat-center.com/t1crS2ex.htm

In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly before broadcasts began there, a study was made of children's behavior. A similar study in the same community, after two years of TV, showed that the aggression rate among children of this age had increased by 160%. The conclusion drawn was that TV plays an important role in generating aggressive behavior in children. A second study, covering the same years, was made in two similar communities that had had television for decades. This study showed no change in the aggression rate from 1973 to 1975. The results of the second study:

A) suggest that the prevalence of violent themes in TV programming may be explained by the tendencies toward violence, which are deep-rooted in human nature.
B) indicate that different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli.
C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure.
D) confirm the conclusion drawn from the first study.
E) disprove the conclusion drawn from the first study.

(D) This is a complicated question and requires a complicated explanation. It is important to keep in mind just what the reported results are. Perhaps most important, nothing is said about the absolute values of the aggression rates, but only about changes in the rates. And nothing is said about how the rates in the other two communities compared with those of the first. The first study correlated two changes-the change from no TV to TV in 1973, as well as the change in aggression rates from 1973 to 1975. The tentative conclusion is that the first of these changes was the cause of the second change. The second study focused on communities in which there was no change --they were already well accustomed to TV in 1973. (Thus the second study focuses on a sort of natural "control group.") That study found that there was no change of the second type - aggression rates in those communities remained constant from 1973 to 1975. The second study thus tends to reduce the plausibility of the suggestion that some change other than the introduction of TV caused the rise in aggressiveness in the first community. If there was some other cause, at least it doesn't seem to have been acting in the communities of the second study. And that reduces the range of possible candidates. Thus the second study tends to make more probable the conclusion drawn from the first study.
_________________

I will greatly appreciate your KUDOS my friends!

Manager
Status: Last few days....Have pressed the throttle
Joined: 20 Jun 2010
Posts: 70
WE 1: 6 years - Consulting
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 27

Re: TV and childrens behaviour [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2011, 01:46
q10nik wrote:
OA is D. LSAT question http://www.lsat-center.com/t1crS2ex.htm

In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly before broadcasts began there, a study was made of children's behavior. A similar study in the same community, after two years of TV, showed that the aggression rate among children of this age had increased by 160%. The conclusion drawn was that TV plays an important role in generating aggressive behavior in children. A second study, covering the same years, was made in two similar communities that had had television for decades. This study showed no change in the aggression rate from 1973 to 1975. The results of the second study:

A) suggest that the prevalence of violent themes in TV programming may be explained by the tendencies toward violence, which are deep-rooted in human nature.
B) indicate that different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli.
C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure.
D) confirm the conclusion drawn from the first study.
E) disprove the conclusion drawn from the first study.

(D) This is a complicated question and requires a complicated explanation. It is important to keep in mind just what the reported results are. Perhaps most important, nothing is said about the absolute values of the aggression rates, but only about changes in the rates. And nothing is said about how the rates in the other two communities compared with those of the first. The first study correlated two changes-the change from no TV to TV in 1973, as well as the change in aggression rates from 1973 to 1975. The tentative conclusion is that the first of these changes was the cause of the second change. The second study focused on communities in which there was no change --they were already well accustomed to TV in 1973. (Thus the second study focuses on a sort of natural "control group.") That study found that there was no change of the second type - aggression rates in those communities remained constant from 1973 to 1975. The second study thus tends to reduce the plausibility of the suggestion that some change other than the introduction of TV caused the rise in aggressiveness in the first community. If there was some other cause, at least it doesn't seem to have been acting in the communities of the second study. And that reduces the range of possible candidates. Thus the second study tends to make more probable the conclusion drawn from the first study.

This question has flaws. I do not see any link between the two communities in the experiment (one which did not have TV and which already possessed TV). It could be that these two communities being compared are in two different cities.Say community A and B:

Community A gets TV in 1973 and at the same time the local Schools changed the syllabus and introduced CR, SC and DS in the syllabus. The experiment showed increased aggression in children. (Aggression could be bcos of TV or may be bcos of change in syllabus)

Community B already had TV and their syllabus was never changed. The children had an a constant aggression rate which never changed. (it would be already an increased aggression which is now constant)

So we cannot conclude by the second conclusion that the increased aggression in A is either bcos of TV or change in syllabus.

What I am trying to explain here is that, in this question there is no clear link given between these two communities and hence saying that "(D) - confirm the conclusion drawn from the first study" is not agreeable
_________________

Consider giving Kudos if my post helps in some way

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3097
Followers: 788

Kudos [?]: 6572 [0], given: 1023

Re: TV and childrens behaviour [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2011, 06:27
Firt study suggest that TV is responsible for the aggression
2nd study shows that theres nothing else other than TV which can be the reason for the aggression , since it didn't see any significant rise in aggression

is ackward but it is so........
_________________
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 101
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 18

Re: TV and childrens behaviour [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2011, 06:39
1 vote for C. Good job Dalmba!
_________________

Hung M.Tran
Faculty of Banking and Finance,
National Economics University of Vietnam

Re: TV and childrens behaviour   [#permalink] 21 Jan 2011, 06:39
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
13 For the first time in history, more televisions than people 13 11 May 2012, 23:20
2 The advent of television 43 21 Sep 2010, 14:33
CR Television 11 05 Nov 2008, 13:51
In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly 18 03 Nov 2008, 22:03
13 For the first time in history, more televisions than people 15 10 Oct 2007, 11:39
Display posts from previous: Sort by