Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
It is worth repeating that studies show that teenagers' [#permalink]
20 Feb 2005, 12:07
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
HideShow timer Statictics
It is worth repeating that studies show that teenagers' exposure to the news is one measure of the extent of youthful political involvement in this society. In addition, the patterns of exposure to the news that develop during the teens continue throughout life. Even though we have confidence in these observations, the conclusions drawn from them by many media experts are simply not valid because so little is understood about the variables that are involved.
Which of the following best states the conclusion to which the author's statement lead?
(A) It is worth studying teenagers' exposure to the news.
(B) Confidence in the observations of the variables that are involved in patterns of exposure to the news supports the conclusions drawn by many media experts.
(C) Understanding teenagers' exposure to the news is critical to understanding human bahavior.
(D) The conclusion of many media experts about exposure to the news involve little-understood variables.
(E) Adult patterns of exposure to the news will ultimately reflect the fact that teenagers are more politically active.
This question is from LSAT success.
Here is the OE.
This question calls for selection of the answer option that could satisfy the conditions set out in the statement and question. Wrong-answer options are those that cannot satisfy the conditions.
Answer option (A) is the best selection, though it is unlikely that you would select it as best after a quick reading. A careful reading will disclose that there is nothing in the answer option that conflicts with the conditions in the statement and question. It is an attractive cream-of-the-crap answer.
Answer option (B) is a cannot wrong-answer option in a same-language disguise. Every word of this answer is taken from the statement, which connects it to the statement and makes it seem attractive. However, it cannot satisfy the statement condition because, among other reasons, confidence cannot support the conclusion of media experts.
Answer option (C) is a cannot wrong-answer option in too-much and same-language disguises. The answer option overstates by using much of the language of the statement to declare that what was "one measure" is actually "critical" and that it encompasses not just "youghful political involvement" but all "human behavior." By using what could be misperceived as paraphrase rather than overstatement, the answer might attract a few test-takers.
Answer option (D) is a cannot wrong-answer option in a true but disguise. The answer option is a "true" statement, but it is irrelevant to the question posed. The author's conclusion, not the media experts', is what is sought.
Answer option (E) is a cannot wrong-answer option in false-assertion and same-language disguises. It misstates the information given. Among many other things, there is no mention in the statement of the degree of teenage political activity involved, nor is it suggested that such activity is related causally to exposure to the news.
What do you guys thing? I picked (D) myself also. This is something new or something irrelevant to the GMAT? I remember when I took the GMAT, there is one question similar to LSAT type by asking for the answer choice that will weaken one argument but not another.
This is very interesting, although I find that it is a little different from the "GMAT style". GMAT often asks you about things that are implied and embedded in the argument, whereas this one asks you to go one step further, to say what is the best conclusion that could form from the author's statement. If we look at what the author has said, D is definitely the right answer. However it is also true that the intent of this paragraph does not seem to be simply criticizing or refuting the media experts.