adstudy wrote:
Rashed12 wrote:
lahoosaher wrote:
M: It is almost impossible to find a person between the ages of 85 an 90 who primarily uses the left hand.
Q: Seventy to ninety years ago, however, children were punished for using their left hands to eat or to write and were forced to use their right hands.
Q's response serves to counter any use by M of the evidence about 85 to 90 year olds in support of which one of the following hypotheses?
(A) Being born right-handed confers a survival advantage.
(B) Societal attitudes toward handedness differ at different times.
(C) Forcing a person to switch from a preferred hand is harmless.
(D) Handedness is a product of both genetic predisposition and social pressures.
(E) Physical habits learned in school often persist in old age.
Q's response serves to counter any use by M of the evidence about 85 to 90 year olds in support of which one of the following hypotheses?I have not understood the meaning of the line. Would anyone help me to get the simplification of the line?
Hi
Rashed12,
This question is somewhat similar to a weakner question.
In a weakener question on the GMAT, we intially have the premise, then from that premise we have a conclusion, and then the question asks us how to weaken that conclusion. Right ?But what make this question tricky is that what
'M' says in the prompt is the
PREMISE. What
'Q' says is actually the
WEAKENER. What the
QUESTION is asking you is to find what will be the
CONCLUSION in this case so that everything falls in place, meaning if what 'M' says is the premise and we have the conclusion from the options, then what 'Q' says should be the weakener.
But yes I agree it is worded quite differently and may be quite perplexing. That is why, I believe it is a good question to rack your brains.
But not sure if these questions have ever been seen on the GMAT or are expected to appear on the GMAT.
Hope the above part has now helped you in understanding the question and also helped you understand how A is the clear choice.
Q's response serves to counter any use by M of the evidence about 85 to 90 year olds in support of which one of the following hypotheses?
- Q counter M (of the evidence/ premise)
- Q counter M, thus Q is weaker, in this part I can understand
but here the question concern about “hypothesis”, which will be the direct determinant to the answer
if this “hypothesis” is the hypothesis of M, THEN (A) CAN BE THE ANSWER
if this “hypothesis” is the hypothesis of both M&Q, THEN (D) COULD BE THE ANSWER
the above will certainly come up with different result which affect the answer-choosing
as Legendaddy say, it seems (A) correct, I’m wrong that I choose (D) at first, maybe this is where my crux is
“The fact that you can’t find old southpaws doesn’t mean that they die earlier, but merely that they don’t behave like southpaws. And that’s how answer choice (A) is supported by M but rebutted by Q.”
It seems that the real problem for this question stem not lie in the wording too perplexed, maybe its my comprehension to the wording not enough to catch the meaning of this question stem
……meaning if what 'M' says is the premise and we have the conclusion from the options, then what 'Q' says should be the weakener.
as your saying for “weakener”, does this mean “weaken” to the conclusion for M?