The advent of television : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 02:53

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Posts: 14
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2010, 14:38
noboru wrote:
Columnist: The advent of television helps to explain why the growth in homicide rates in urban areas began significantly earlier than the growth in homicide rates in rural areas. Television sets became popular in urban households about four years earlier than in rural households. Urban homicide rates began increasing in 1958, about four years earlier than a similar increase in rural homicide rates began.
Which one of the following, if true, most support the columnist’s argument?
(A) In places where the number of violent television programs is low, the homicide rates are also low. - The argument doesn't mention anything about programs on television - violent or non violent - hence not relevant
(B) The portrayal of violence on television is a cause, not an effect of the violence in society. - Best option, by POE and by the cause-effect logic
(C) There were no violent television programs during the early years of television. - Again, the argument doesn't mention anything about violent programs or about the early years. Anyways, this is too extreme a statement.
(D) The earlier one is exposed to violence on television, the more profound the effect. - Nowhere in the passage, it is mentioned that the urban homicides have turned more aggressive than the rural ones just because the urban ones started earlier.
(E) Increasing one’s amount of leisure time increases one’s inclination to act violently. - Out of scope

oa to come

Was inclined slightly towards D, but then realized B was a lot better.
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 333
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2010, 14:49
noboru, where is the OA ???????
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 141
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 26

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2010, 17:38
I'm also in the B camp..

It establishes that violence on TV caused violence in the society which strengthens the argument.

Whenever I see strengthen C&E reasoning, I always look for choices that do the following:

Establish that the cause always results in the desired effect OR when the cause does NOT occur, the effect does NOT occur
The relationship is not reversed
The data used to come up with the relationships is not flawed
There isn't some external factor

B seems to fit the bill.. though D did look tempting
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 441
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 112

### Show Tags

23 Sep 2010, 19:08
D
Intern
Joined: 21 Aug 2010
Posts: 11
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2010, 05:57
What is the OA, noburu ? this doesn't look OQ anyways. thanks.
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 333
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2010, 06:48
Why D is incorrect -

The statement simply says -
Urban areas exposed to Television in 1958 -> homicide rates increased.
Rural areas exposed to Television in 1962 - > homicide rates increased.

On the contrary, D talks about how if you are exposed earlier, the effect is more profound. Maybe true, but is it relevant to the statement ? NO. The statement does not talk about how urban cities have more proud effect than rural areas. Nothing in the statement says that Urban homicide rate increased more than that of rural areas. The effect was seen as soon as you are exposed to Television. Therefore, it is something in the Television that is influencing the increase in homicide rate. Or, there is something in the Television that it "causing" the increase in the rate.

BTW, noboru you are banned
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 120
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V40
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2010, 09:46
I am surprised that no one has picked C. This is a casual and comparison argument.

Cause ---> Effect
Advent of TV ---> (Homicide rate in Urban areas > Homicide rate in rural area)

There are a couple of ways to strengthen the argument
1. To show that there is no other cause.
2. Inabsence of cause, there would be no effect.
3. Comparison between urban and rural is intact.

Also, the scope is ""television program" and "Homicide rate"

(A) In places where the number of violent television programs is low, the homicide rates are also low. - Incorrect. Narrow scope "violent television programs". (B) The portrayal of violence on television is a cause, not an effect of the violence in society.Incorrect - the cause is the portrayal of violence on tv and not really the advent of tv.
(C) There were no violent television programs during the early years of television. Correct. It is also called the defender argument. It is simply saying that violent television is not the cause.
(D) The earlier one is exposed to violence on television, the more profound the effect. Incorrect. Simply saying that the violence is the primary cause.
(E) Increasing one’s amount of leisure time increases one’s inclination to act violently. Incorrect. Out of scope.
_________________

----------------------------------------------
My GMAT Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/name-of-the-game-do-not-giveup-112609.html

If you like my post, Kudos me.

Don't forget to visit me - http://mbaido.wordpress.com/

Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 225
Location: Boston
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 183 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2010, 10:01
talk2vj wrote:
I am surprised that no one has picked C. This is a casual and comparison argument.

Cause ---> Effect
Advent of TV ---> (Homicide rate in Urban areas > Homicide rate in rural area)

There are a couple of ways to strengthen the argument
1. To show that there is no other cause.
2. Inabsence of cause, there would be no effect.
3. Comparison between urban and rural is intact.

Also, the scope is ""television program" and "Homicide rate"

(A) In places where the number of violent television programs is low, the homicide rates are also low. - Incorrect. Narrow scope "violent television programs". (B) The portrayal of violence on television is a cause, not an effect of the violence in society.Incorrect - the cause is the portrayal of violence on tv and not really the advent of tv.
(C) There were no violent television programs during the early years of television. Correct. It is also called the defender argument. It is simply saying that violent television is not the cause.
(D) The earlier one is exposed to violence on television, the more profound the effect. Incorrect. Simply saying that the violence is the primary cause.
(E) Increasing one’s amount of leisure time increases one’s inclination to act violently. Incorrect. Out of scope.

They never define the "early years" of television in the article. Broadcast television began in 1928. How can you say, based solely on this article, that 1954-1962 constitute the "early years" of television?
Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 141
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 26

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2010, 10:03
TehJay wrote:
talk2vj wrote:
I am surprised that no one has picked C. This is a casual and comparison argument.

Cause ---> Effect
Advent of TV ---> (Homicide rate in Urban areas > Homicide rate in rural area)

There are a couple of ways to strengthen the argument
1. To show that there is no other cause.
2. Inabsence of cause, there would be no effect.
3. Comparison between urban and rural is intact.

Also, the scope is ""television program" and "Homicide rate"

(A) In places where the number of violent television programs is low, the homicide rates are also low. - Incorrect. Narrow scope "violent television programs". (B) The portrayal of violence on television is a cause, not an effect of the violence in society.Incorrect - the cause is the portrayal of violence on tv and not really the advent of tv.
(C) There were no violent television programs during the early years of television. Correct. It is also called the defender argument. It is simply saying that violent television is not the cause.
(D) The earlier one is exposed to violence on television, the more profound the effect. Incorrect. Simply saying that the violence is the primary cause.
(E) Increasing one’s amount of leisure time increases one’s inclination to act violently. Incorrect. Out of scope.

They never define the "early years" of television in the article. Broadcast television began in 1928. How can you say, based solely on this article, that 1954-1962 constitute the "early years" of television?

I guess if you interpret early years of television as being referred to colour TV, then it might make sense... still a stretch I think..

Anyone know the source of this question
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 333
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2010, 10:27
the weird part in the question is that the statement NEVER mentioned anything about violence on television and all the choices talk about them !

My guess, this is question is from one of the prep company.
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 120
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V40
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 104 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2010, 12:22

This CR doesn't follow the typical GMAT style. Usually, the supporter choices are interpretation of the premise by maintaining the scope of the argument. Using "violent tv program" is really a change in the scope. And the defender choices may have new information but should be qualified for the casual relationship.

None of the choices are really strong enough, including C ( that I chose before).
_________________

----------------------------------------------
My GMAT Experience : http://gmatclub.com/forum/name-of-the-game-do-not-giveup-112609.html

If you like my post, Kudos me.

Don't forget to visit me - http://mbaido.wordpress.com/

Current Student
Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Posts: 1847
Location: United States (NC)
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: UNC (Kenan-Flagler) - Class of 2013
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Followers: 25

Kudos [?]: 249 [0], given: 52

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2010, 12:41
maybe the verbal mods can help with their mad skillz? this ques too split up
_________________

SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1628
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 42

Kudos [?]: 1057 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2010, 14:53
Hi all,
Sorry for the delay.

OA is B. Both TehJay and onedayill explained it well.

The source is LSAT. I'm starting to love that test.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 102
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2010, 10:33
D
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 333
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2010, 10:59
D

OA is B
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Manager
Joined: 23 Apr 2009
Posts: 70
Location: Texas
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2010, 13:33
I would have to go with B
Senior Manager
Affiliations: Volunteer Operation Smile India, Creative Head of College IEEE branch (2009-10), Chief Editor College Magazine (2009), Finance Head College Magazine (2008)
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 471
Location: India
WE2: Entrepreneur (E-commerce - The Laptop Skin Vault)
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Marketing (Other)
Followers: 13

Kudos [?]: 145 [0], given: 24

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2010, 09:20
Yup B it is
_________________

Kidchaos

http://www.laptopskinvault.com

Follow The Laptop Skin Vault on:

Consider Kudos if you think the Post is good
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to change. It's not. - Dr. Seuss

Intern
Joined: 23 May 2010
Posts: 35
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2010, 14:45
I'm going with B. B clarifies that tv programming is making people more violent, not that violence is driving a change in tv programming (violent people wanna see violent programs).

No mention of "violent programming" is made in the argument. Did everyone else make the assumption that the programming on TV (causing the violence) during that time was violent programming? Assumption of violent programming was just ingrained, I guess. Just an observation.
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2009
Posts: 333
Location: USA
WE 1: Engineering
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 75 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2010, 15:12
I had posted the same observation above -

the weird part in the question is that the statement NEVER mentioned anything about violence on television and all the choices talk about them !

My guess, this is question is from one of the prep company.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

All things are possible to those who believe.

Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Posts: 125
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 17

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2010, 00:25
IMO A

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 44 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
A TV producer has reached maximum audience with a TV show 6 22 Feb 2016, 03:46
6 Before the advent of writing each of the isolated clans of t 3 19 Aug 2013, 13:08
2 Before the advent of writing each of the isolated clans of 2 14 Sep 2011, 12:01
2 Television debate 12 22 Mar 2011, 03:37
CR Television 11 05 Nov 2008, 13:51
Display posts from previous: Sort by