Studies show that children who watch too much television are more like

The author has built the argument on the lines that A causes B and it’s only A which causes B. There are no other factors. "Watching television" leads to obesity and hence, Jacob’s obesity is the result of watching television. Hence, answer choice "A" brings out the analogy perfectly. Sales increased more in the shop on the main street than in the one at the corner only because of the bigger advertisement and nothing else.

Studies show that children who watch too much television are more likely than others to become obese adults. Jacob, who is an obese adult, must have watched more television as a child than I did, since I am not obese.

more X results in Y normally.
So Y indicates that X must have happened more.

Which of the following most closely parallels the logical structure above ?

A. The hardware store on Main Street must have had a bigger advertisement in the Sunday paper than the hardware store around the corner had. The hardware store on Main Street sold twice as many items as the hardware store around the corner did last week, and a Sunday paper advertisement has been shown to increase the number of items sold.

B. Studies show that large dogs lives shorter lives, on average, than small dogs do. Rex is a large dog and therefore might be expected to live a shorter life than Mustang, who is a small dog.
Naturally X is more than y
so ex of X follows the same.

C.The county superintendent stated that all schools would be canceled for the day if snowfall last night were greater than six inches. Therefore, since the snowfall was only five inches, we must be following the usual school schedule today.
if X then Y
if not X then not Y.........this is not the same as our pre- thinking above

D. According to research, people with unusual musical talent do not achieve their true potential unless they are given formal lessons. Therefore Jesse, who has achieved his full musical potential without formal lessons must not have unusual musical talent.
X do not result unless for y
so one without X is without Y as well..........this is not the same as our pre- thinking above

E. People who like vegetables also like fruits. Elizabeth does not like fruits, so she must not like vegetables either.
X results in y
since y is not true even X might not be true...........this is not the same as our pre- thinking above.

OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

In this Mimic the Reasoning question, the original argument is flawed. Thus the correct answer will reproduce the error in the original argument. Based on the premise that too much television leads to a greater likelihood of obesity, the author draws the conclusion that someone who is obese MUST have watched more television than someone who is not obese. The argument ignores possible alternative causes for obesity (diet, genetic predisposition, etc.). Television viewing ---> obesity does not mean that Obesity ---> television. Any correct answer should contain the same flawed reasoning that IF A, THEN B also implies IF B, THEN A.
Answer (A) is correct because the premise is that a bigger Sunday ad leads to more items sold. The erroneous conclusion is that if more items were sold, the cause must have been a bigger Sunday ad. This argument ignores possible alternative causes for the number of items sold (location, selection, etc.). Answer (B) is incorrect because it provides a premise and then a specific example that fits the premise. It is not flawed and does not match the original logical structure. Answer (C) is incorrect because it provides information about how the school schedule will change if 6 inches of snow fall. The conclusion, which is not necessarily true, assumes that there will not be a change to the school schedule if fewer than 6 inches of snow fall. In fact, we don't know what will happen when 5 inches of snow fall. This is a different flaw than in the original argument. Answers (D) and (C) present valid arguments and thus do not match the original.

Wow. This is actually a huge point. Try to understand the purpose of the argument than the conclusion or the logic. If you get to understand that the purpose is to find why a fact is formed with another theory, the correct answer should be only A.

GMATNinjaTwo, gmat1393, GMATNinja, nightblade354

Dear experts : can you please which one is necessary and sufficient condition in this option ?

E. People who like vegetables also like fruits. Elizabeth does not like fruits, so she must not like vegetables either.

I wouldn't say there are conditions here. I would say that this is a correlation.

But within the correlation, the sufficient would be those who like vegetable, and the necessary would be those who like fruits.

nightblade354 :

Sorry for late reply.
The flawed reasoning in option A is that it assumes since Sufficient condition doesn't happen, necessary condition also doesn't happen. ---> mistaken negation
In option E , if we consider those who like fruit as necessary condition then in absence of necessary condition, sufficient condition doesn't happen -- contra positive.

SO the reasoning in original argument and in E is not similar. Am I correct ?

regards,
Arup Sarkar

Yeah, they don’t match. E is using the contrapositive as you said whereas the argument gives a correlation and then says one must happen because it didn’t happen to the other

Posted from my mobile device

Mapping the argument:
If X happens ( children watch too much television) --> then Y happens (they are more obese)
Conclusion: Y has happened (jacob is obese ) --> hence X has happened (he must have watched too much TV)
Flaws - he is suffering from some medical condition.
In short the argument is X ---> Y == Y ---> X

A. The hardware store on Main Street must have had a bigger advertisement in the Sunday paper than the hardware store around the corner had. The hardware store on Main Street sold twice as many items as the hardware store around the corner did last week, and a Sunday paper advertisement has been shown to increase the number of items sold.

X = Sunday paper ad ---> Y = increase in sales
Hence Y = sales have increased ---> X = the store must have had an Sunday ad
- Correct

B. Studies show that large dogs live shorter lives, on average, than small dogs do. Rex is a large dog and therefore might be expected to live a shorter life than Mustang, who is a small dog.
- Wrong
X = large dogs ---> Y = shorter lives
For this option to be correct: Y = Rex lived a shorter life ---> X = Rex was a large dog

C.The county superintendent stated that all schools would be canceled for the day if snowfall last night were greater than six inches. Therefore, since the snowfall was only five inches, we must be following the usual school schedule today.
- Wrong
X = if it snowed > 6 inches ---> Y = all schools would be cancelled
For this choice to be correct: Y = all schools were cancelled ---> X = hence it snowed > 6 inches

D. According to research, people with unusual musical talent do not achieve their true potential unless they are given formal lessons. Therefore Jesse, who has achieved his full musical potential without formal lessons must not have unusual musical talent.
- Wrong
There are X 1 and X2 leading to Y. Our argument only supports one "X"

E. People who like vegetables also like fruits. Elizabeth does not like fruits, so she must not like vegetables either.
- Wrong
X = People like vegetables ---> Y = people also like fruits
For this argument to be true: Y = Eli likes fruits ---> X = she also likes vegetables

Studies show that children who watch too much television are more likely than others to become obese adults. Jacob, who is an obese adult, must have watched more television as a child than I did, since I am not obese.

Which of the following most closely parallels the logical structure above ?

Child watch tv —- obese
J obese —- more tv than me since i am not obese

A. Sunday paper ad —- more items sold
Hardware store on Main Street —- sold more than corner one. So main street one has bigger Sunday ad than corner one.
Good.

B. Large dog —-shorter lives
Rex large dog —- so shorter
Smaller dog —— longer life
This argument doesn’t parallel the argument since the second part of this option must have used shorter life as the subject, not larger dog.
C. There is no comparison
D. No comparison
E. No comparison

Posted from my mobile device

AndrewN, would love to know your thoughts here. The argument is "flawed" as it states that A is the only cause of B. I get how the other options do not work, but still feel a isn't that great either. Here is A -

"The hardware store on Main Street must have had a bigger advertisement in the Sunday paper than the hardware store around the corner had. The hardware store on Main Street sold twice as many items as the hardware store around the corner did last week, and a Sunday paper advertisement has been shown to increase the number of items sold."

Selling more items than another store does not mean that the sales have increased. Whereas in the question - we know for a fact that Jacob is obese and the author is not.

Not denying the fact that that option A does hinge on the fact that there could be other reasons behind the outcome. I'm just not entirely convinced we have the said outcome here.

It is funny, Brian123. I thought (A) looked pretty good right away, but I left it alone while I sought answers that were easier to eliminate. I did not consider any other answer except (D), and by the time I committed to my original answer, almost three minutes had passed. (I think I was being extra cautious because of the 95 percent question difficulty. Silly me.) I agree with you that "selling more items than another store does not mean that the sales have increased," and I think that may be the point: the logic is flawed. We do not know whether the newspaper ad hypothesis holds any merit. We still cannot dispute the given information that one store sold twice as much as another over the course of the previous week, just as in the passage, we cannot ignore the facts about one person being obese and the other not. The passage and answer choice (A) do not present perfectly parallel structures, but they are the most closely related of the five options presented, for reasons provided above by Rock750 (and, of course, the OE).

Did you have any questions about specific answer choices? I suppose the takeaway here is to keep your approach simple. When you get into the details of each bit of the passage and answer choices, nothing will seem to hold up.

- Andrew

Yeah, that makes sense. Out of all the other options, A most closely resembles the reasoning in the stem. And nope, I was able to rule out all the other options, but felt uncomfortable while picking A. Thanks for the response.

How to tackle these type of questions egmat @karishmaveritasprep