Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 16 Apr 2014, 16:55

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

School children who are punished by their teachers for not

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1619
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

School children who are punished by their teachers for not [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2007, 05:04
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
School children who are punished by their teachers for not paying attention are, nevertheless, caught again and again for inattention. On the other hand, children punished for copying other student's answers during tests usually do not repeat the punished behavior. It appears that while punishment is ineffective in changing the behavior of inattentive children, it does convince cheaters that their behavior was wrong and that they should not cheat anymore.

This conclusion would be weakened the most by which of the following?

A) Known cheaters are usually reseated in the back of the class by themselves.
B) Studies indicate that cheaters are seldom punished by their teachers.
C) The proportion of inattentive students punished for their inattentiveness is larger than the proportion of cheaters punished for their cheating.
D) Cheaters whose punishment is reduced go back to cheating somewhat more than cheaters who undergo their entire punishment.
E) Cheaters are not usually inattentive, and inattentive students seldom cheat.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 178
Followers: 0

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

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2007, 05:49
i'll go for D
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2007, 05:59
M choice is 'A'
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1474
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 13

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR--from old LSAT materials [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2007, 11:39
stolyar wrote:
School children who are punished by their teachers for not paying attention are, nevertheless, caught again and again for inattention. On the other hand, children punished for copying other student's answers during tests usually do not repeat the punished behavior. It appears that while punishment is ineffective in changing the behavior of inattentive children, it does convince cheaters that their behavior was wrong and that they should not cheat anymore.

This conclusion would be weakened the most by which of the following?

A) Known cheaters are usually reseated in the back of the class by themselves.
B) Studies indicate that cheaters are seldom punished by their teachers.
C) The proportion of inattentive students punished for their inattentiveness is larger than the proportion of cheaters punished for their cheating.
D) Cheaters whose punishment is reduced go back to cheating somewhat more than cheaters who undergo their entire punishment.
E) Cheaters are not usually inattentive, and inattentive students seldom cheat.


A directly attacks the conclusioin that it is because of the punishment that the cheaters have stopped cheating by giving an alternative explanation to the behavior.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 199
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2007, 18:08
Pick A.

Explanation: The argument states that cheaters do not repeat cheating and so, the punishment has worked on them.
A tells us that they sit in the back of the room. THus, because of their location in the room, it could just be that they are not caught anymore or whatever reason. Hence, A weakens the conclusion.
VP
VP
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 1391
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2007, 18:52
Where does it say in the stem that poisitions in the class influence punishment .

I think A cannot be the answer....

My guess is B for this
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1619
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2007, 21:25
Official answer is A.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2504
Followers: 48

Kudos [?]: 451 [0], given: 19

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2007, 22:16
stolyar wrote:
Official answer is A.


stolyar, first of all, sorry for cheating your avatar. pls do not punish me. :wink:


next, how do we know that sitting in the back is difficult to detect cheating.

IMO, it should be B, which says that cheaters are rarely punished i.e means if they are rarely punished, they could still be cheating.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2007, 22:22
trivikram wrote:
Where does it say in the stem that poisitions in the class influence punishment .

I think A cannot be the answer....

My guess is B for this


The challenge here is to find that added information which is not originally given in the passage and when added or included in, it would hence weeken the author's conclusion.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 2504
Followers: 48

Kudos [?]: 451 [0], given: 19

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2007, 22:30
Beyond700 wrote:
trivikram wrote:
Where does it say in the stem that poisitions in the class influence punishment .

I think A cannot be the answer....

My guess is B for this


The challenge here is to find that added information which is not originally given in the passage and when added or included in, it would hence weeken the author's conclusion.


Again how do we know that reseating in the back makes it less likely to be caught/punished by the teachers?
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Posts: 647
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 01 Oct 2007, 23:56
GMAT TIGER wrote:
Beyond700 wrote:
trivikram wrote:
Where does it say in the stem that poisitions in the class influence punishment .

I think A cannot be the answer....

My guess is B for this


The challenge here is to find that added information which is not originally given in the passage and when added or included in, it would hence weeken the author's conclusion.


Again how do we know that reseating in the back makes it less likely to be caught/punished by the teachers?


Conclusion as copied below
On the other hand, children punished for copying other student's answers during tests usually do not repeat the punished behavior. It appears that while punishment is ineffective in changing the behavior of inattentive children, it does convince cheaters that their behavior was wrong and that they should not cheat anymore.

Those marked in red defines the conclusion : Students realise their mistakes and don't cheat anymore.

The above conclusion is only valid if there is any moment of opportunity for them to cheat. If they don't have any then there is no clear evidence that they will not cheat if given one.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1619
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 02 Oct 2007, 05:08
Official explanation:

(A) If this alternative were true, the argument for the effectiveness of punishment would be seriously weakened, as the cheaters may only modify their behavior because the opportunity for copying is greatly reduced. This is the correct choice. B) This argument is irrelevant to the conclusion that punishment is effective. The question is not how often the children are punished, but how effective is the punishment when administered. C) Again, the argument is irrelevant to the conclusion, which addresses the effectiveness, not the prevalence of punishment. D) This seems to be plausible alternative, but it sidesteps the issue and addresses the amount of the punishment rather than the relative effectiveness. It does not weaken the conclusion. E) This is not directly relevant to the conclusion.
  [#permalink] 02 Oct 2007, 05:08
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
New posts According to the school's principal, no teacher who refuses Pauline 7 30 Jul 2005, 02:10
Popular new posts Children who attended private high schools may initially rchadha 10 05 Aug 2005, 15:49
New posts Those who oppose psychological testing of school children, Swagatalakshmi 5 17 Nov 2006, 21:50
New posts 1 Experts publish their posts in the topic Children who attended private high schools may initially Legendaddy 8 11 Sep 2012, 04:39
New posts 1 The kindergarten teacher had the children in the class gathe honchos 4 06 Mar 2014, 09:06
Display posts from previous: Sort by

School children who are punished by their teachers for not

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.