apramanik wrote:
Mr. Lawson: We should adopt a national family policy that includes legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care. Such laws would decrease the stress levels of employees who have responsibility for small children. Thus, such laws would lead to happier, better-adjusted families.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?
(A) An employee’s high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family.
(B) People who have responsibility for small children and who work outside the home have higher stress levels than those who do not.
(C) The goal of a national family policy is to lower the stress levels of parents.
(D) Any national family policy that is adopted would include legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care.
(E) Most children who have been cared for in daycare centers are happy and well adjusted.
Type: Strengthen
Boil It Down: National family policy -> Happier, better-adjusted families
Missing Information: The connection between stress reduction and happier families
Goal:
Find the option that shows a clear connection between reduced stress levels and happier, better-adjusted familiesAnalysis: This prompt sets up a causal argument (National family policy -> Happier, better-adjusted families). That means the reasoning assumes that there's a connection between reducing stress levels and happier families. To strengthen, we need to select an option that either clarifies this connection or supports the idea that the proposed policy would have the desired effect.
A) Yes. This option directly links an employee's high stress level to unhappiness and poor adjustment in their family. By showing this connection, it strengthens Mr. Lawson's conclusion that adopting a national family policy with paid parental leave and government-sponsored day care would lead to happier, better-adjusted families.
B) While this option highlights that people with responsibility for small children have higher stress levels, it doesn't show how the proposed policy would reduce these stress levels.
C) Stating the goal of a national family policy is not evidence supporting Mr. Lawson's specific proposal.
D) Repeating what Mr. Lawson has said about what should be included in a national family policy does not strengthen his argument.
E) Providing information about children in daycare centers does not establish a connection between these centers and reduced stress levels for parents.
Additional Analysis About Option A)The key to understanding why option A strengthens the argument requires paraphrasing the conclusion, and taking that paraphrase an extra step:
The argument is essentially saying that adopting a national family policy with paid parental leave and government-sponsored day care would lead to happier, better-adjusted families.
Paraphrased conclusionThat claim could be paraphrased to say:
reducing employees' stress levels leads to happier and better-adjusted families.
Now read A):
An employee’s high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family.
And since A) supports the connection between stress reduction and happier families, it strengthens the argument.
Bigger GMAT Picture:
On tricky causal arguments, ACT/GMAC won’t just come out and say that it’s this other cause. That can be too obvious.
In this case, option A successfully strengthens the argument by providing a clear connection between reduced stress levels and happier, better-adjusted families. This reinforces Mr. Lawson's conclusion that adopting a national family policy with paid parental leave and government-sponsored day care would lead to the desired outcome of happier families.
_________________
EMPOWERgmat
Total GMAT Content & Tactical Training | 120 Point Guarantee | All 6 Official GMAT Tests
empowergmat.com