A recent study of Las Vegas clubs showed that out of a large

Hey Vivek,

Let me see if I can help...

Firstly - always read the question. This question says "most seriously weaken"

This should be enough to send you to D over E. Even if both D & E weaken, it is clear that D is a very serious weakener, so must be correct.

To analyse further.

The issue is that you get coupons PER VISIT. There fore how you spend those over the number of times you visit doesn't actually change the total amount you drink. It may mean you drink more in one visit, but TOTAL you will still only get Total visits*coupons per visit/ Total visits - and this will not be afffected by the amount of total visits

James

I don't get why D is a weakener. It seems like a strengthener to me! If those who visit 3+ times a week have to have minimum of 2 drinks per visit it only strengthens the author's conclusion. How does it weaken the argument?

Hi Prav,

The key thing, in my opinion, when looking at weakener questions is to think:

Is this answer choice giving me another reason behind the correlation.

In this case we know that regular club goers drink more than infrequent. What we don't know is if their frequency is the CAUSE of their drinking.

D gives us another potential cause - that the frequent club goers go to high-class places. So cutting down their attendance would not actually help - as it's the kind of club that influennces drinking habits.

James

Option D.
It provides an alternative explanation as to why those who visit clubs 3+ times a week might have more alcohol.They have a different reason ie 2 drinks minimum condition.This is clearly weakening the argument that club visits should be less than equal to 3 to REDUCE alcohol consumption.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi Mike - Can you please tell me how option A( Las Vegas clubs offer drink specials to customers who frequent their clubs more than 3+ times a week.) is even a contender for being a weakener ? It is clearly strengthening the conclusion... The conclusion says "people trying to cut back on alcohol consumption in Las Vegas should limit their club-going to three times a week maximum". So if option A holds good , then certainly people trying to cut back on alcoholism should not frequent the clubs 3+ times to avail the drink specials...
Please correct where my understanding is going wrong.

still I am not convinced why option A is wrong :s
A. Las Vegas clubs offer drink specials to customers who frequent their clubs more than 3+ times a week.
then in order to cut back on alcohol consumption, maybe they should stop giving those special offers to this particular category of customers, who frequent their club more 3 times a week. Furthermore, option A suggests that the study is biased and not representative, since one category is getting privileges that increase their alcohol consumption...
grrr

plz help

I have a doubt for choice A

Lets say while choosing the clubs, one already knows that for 3+ stays you get free drinks then analcoholic goes for more number of stays - isnt that a weakener? Since the offer influences the choice of number of stays, the causality of "more stays -> more alcohol" doesnt hold firm

Please share your thoughts

Dear viciss,
I'm happy to respond. First of all, please see my earlier post in this thread, from November 1, 2013.

I have searched the web, and I have found absolutely no evidence that this is a Veritas question. Typically, Veritas questions are of high quality. This, by contrast, is a poor question. My friend, it doesn't prepare you for the GMAT to wrestle with the inherent ambiguities of low quality questions. Just because some company or individual out there says, "Here's a GMAT CR practice question," don't naively assume that the question will adhere to the high standards of the GMAT. I have seen many exceptionally poor quality questions floating around in this forum, and the poorest ones usually spawn lengthy discussions, precisely because they are ambiguous and poorly written.

The official questions, in the OG & GMAT Prep & other official material, are superb, the best questions available. MGMAT and Veritas and Magoosh all have high quality questions. Here's a high quality practice question:
https://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/3150

Don't spend time worrying about the low quality questions. That won't help you at all for the GMAT.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thanks Mike for your timely response and yes I did check your earlier response too. I agree that this ques may not uphold the highest standards but just to confirm this ques is indeed from veritas question bank. I came here looking for an explanation to the same

But nonetheless you drove point home that there are 2 weakener choices here (read ambiguous) and I agree choice A is has scope for misinterpretations.

Thanks alot.

what a question....it appeared in Questions of the day in my workbook..

A. Las Vegas clubs offer drink specials to customers who frequent their clubs more than 3+ times a week.
this clearly supports the conclusion. The more you frequent, the more drink specials you receive, and..since customers are customers..they tend to buy more when they see discounts

B. The study’s results only held up for Las Vegas clubs, not for clubs in other major cities in Nevada.
the argument discusses only LV clubs, so out.
C. Many recovering alcoholics in Las Vegas formerly frequented clubs more than three times a week.
Out of scope. Has no influence on the conclusion.
D. The study also showed that club-goers who attend clubs 3+ times a week, unlike those who attend less than three times a week, typically choose to visit upscale clubs which require two-drink minimums.
This one again, supports the conclusion. IF you attend more than 3 times per week, you have to have at least 2 drinks, which increases the consumption with each visit.
E. Drink coupons are extremely popular in Las Vegas clubs, and are typically distributed evenly to all patrons in Las Vegas clubs, though they must be used within a week of being distributed.
this one discusses coupons that are distributed to patrons. But what do we need patrons? How they distribute these coupons to the clients? Not known, so definitely this is not the answer choice.

I believe neither answer is correct.

Hi Mike,

This question is in fact from Veritas (question ID 08034). I agree that Veritas' questions are usually of high quality but they can sometimes be a bit sloppy. In this particular question, I am not sure why you think A) is a weakener. It is pretty clear that, if clubs offer special drinks to club goers who frequent their clubs more than 3+ times a week, then the author's conclusion that people should limit their club-going to three times a week maximum is in fact strengthened. Can you elaborate on your thinking?

Dear TheLostBear,
I'm happy to respond.

The more I think about, the more I think that (D) is a reasonably clear weakener and (A) is unclear. I guess my thinking for (A) was: what does it mean to say "Las Vegas clubs offer drink specials to customers"? For example, one relatively bizarre special would be I pay for one drink and for that same price, two more drinks are automatically delivered to me for free. This wouldn't necessarily mean that I drink all three drinks. I had in mind various scenarios in which a lower price or deal would encourage the purchase of more alcohol, but the purchase would not necessarily lead to drinking more alcohol if folks had received more alcohol than they wanted. Of course, all of those scenarios rely on assumptions, and (A) can also be interpreted as a strengthener, as you point out, so I would call (A) unclear.

Mike

if d is a weakens the argument so does E.....Minimum of Two drinks will be served according to D...If people visit fewer times the consumption will be reduced..If one assume that when the number decreases quantity they drink increases...Then this is true for E too....It is not said that they get coupons PER visit..To make full use of coupons this people will drink larger quantity per visit....D as well as E weakens...I dont get how one can easily eliminate E??

Sir,

I understood your explanation and now I can go with D as the answer.

But in the first go, I eliminated 'D', As this option talks about the upscale clubs and two drink minimums. I thought these two things are out of context and are chosen to distract us.

I chose the answer as C. Assuming, If recovering alcoholics can go to club for 3+ times a week and would not be drinking alcohol will weaken the statement. As it will lead to a cut back on alcohol consumption situation.

Please clarify.
Thanking you !!

Dear mohit2free,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, success on the GMAT CR depends on having a basic sense of real world knowledge. You don't need to have specific knowledge about the specific topics discussed, but it's important to have a general sense of real world situations. See:
GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge

In understanding why (C) is wrong, it's helpful to have some general sense of alcoholism, or alcohol dependence syndrome. I will say in all seriousness, thank your lucky stars if you have no personal experience with this in your family or among your friends. Alcoholism affects about 7% of the population in the US, not a majority, but enough that many people know someone affected. It's common enough that it's important to have a general sense of the disease and how bad it can be if it is not managed properly. There's a classic old movie, Days of Wine and Roses, that unsparingly portrays the worst effects of alcoholism.

All this is to say that people suffering from alcoholism have motivations and patterns of behavior that are not the same as those of people not suffering from the disease. It's no surprise, for example, that "many recovering alcoholics in Las Vegas formerly frequented clubs more than three times a week." If someone with a true alcohol addiction were prevented from going to the bar more than a couple times a week, that person most likely would find alternate avenues to acquire alcohol. What would work or not work for someone with alcohol dependence syndrome gives us no insight into what might work or not work for someone who is not unduly influenced by alcohol. Thus, in some sense, the fact given in (C) is at best only weakly suggestive and not really relevant for the majority of the population.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

The correct response is (D). One way to weaken an argument is to provide an alternate reason for the conclusion. If there’s another reason those who party 3+ times a week also drink more alcohol per visit, then people who want to drink less alcohol might not necessarily need to limit their club-going. (D) weakens the conclusion by suggesting that the 3+ a week partiers visit upscale clubs which have minimums. If it’s the drink minimums that is causing more consumption of alcohol, then it’s possible recovering alcoholics could choose to visit non-upscale clubs without drink minimums 3+ times a week and not be at risk of over-consuming alcoholic. Since the conclusion is only concerned with Las Vegas clubs, (B) is irrelevant. (A) helps explain the conclusion, but does not weaken it, while (C) strengthens the conclusion.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.