A child's conception of whether certain behavior

Question

A child's conception of whether certain behavior is right or wrong, referred to as "behavioral pre-disposition," is fully developed by the age of 10. During a person's teenage years, other teenagers with whom the person associates regularly have a significant influence on whether the person later acts in accordance with his or her predisposition. In other words, teenagers tend to mimic their peers' behavior. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of adult criminals also committed crimes as teenagers and associated primarily with other teenagers who later became adult criminals.

Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

A child's conception of whether certain behavior is right or wrong can change during the child's teenage years.
  Until a child becomes a teenager it is impossible to predict whether the child will eventually become an adult criminal.
  Law-abiding adults are unlikely to have developed a predisposition for adult criminal behavior.
  An adult criminal is likely to have been predisposed as a child to criminal behavior.
  Pre-teen children who are not predisposed to criminal behavior are unlikely to become adult criminals.

Am I wrong or is the OA wrong? Please help.

Official answer is D. The official explanation is as follows:

Based on the last sentence of the passage, we can conclude that juvenile criminals associate primarily with other juvenile criminals, and that adult criminals constitute the same group of people who were juvenile criminals. For choice (D) to  not  be readily inferable would require most adult criminals associate primarily with law-abiding peers as teenagers. But this contradicts what we know about adult criminals, based on the passage information. Thus, choice (D) is strongly inferable.

I find some of the reasoning here flawed. Juvenile criminals do associate with other juvenile criminals, BUT juvenile criminals might have had acted for or against their pre-teen conception of right and wrong. But (D) claims that they were predisposed. Or, to flip it around (as the OA does): for choice (D) to  not  be readily inferable would require adult criminals associate primarily with teenagers who had the correct conception of what constitutes a bad behavior (i.e. they knew that stealing was bad). That doesn't contradict anything, because no information is available on how other juvenile criminals were predisposed.

In other words, a child who knows that stealing is bad might be influenced to steal, become a juvenile criminal and influence another "good boy" to steal.

I think the only possible answer here is (B).

Gnpth · Answer

Hi, Actually an inference questions is where we have find "What else must be true from the given passage" ... It may be restatement of the premise. With this i go for D. Which is correctly inferred from the passage. As far as B is concerned- It is might be true scenario- This statement may be true sometimes, but not always (More like an assumptions) To make it more clear. Please read this post -- https://gmatclub.com/forum/inference-vs-assumption-146758.html .. This may helps you understand

ronr34 · Answer

I am having trouble with D,
B seems a lot more true, as it is written that the behavior can significantly change during the teenage years...

Gnpth · Answer

Hi,

What is actually i understood from both B and D.

B. we cannot predict that child whether he will be criminal when he becomes adult untill he turns to his teenage.

It is more like an assumptions. It may be true or may not be, He can be a normal child during his childhood days but a criminal now.

D. The fact that Adult criminal  most likely  has been exposed to criminal behavior during the child.

It is more like a re-statement of the final lines in passage.

This doesn't say all adult criminals but majority of them, thats what option D also states. This is what i think.

garazhaka · Answer

It's not an assumption. It follows from the premise that regardless of pre-teen pre-disposition, the teenager can turn either way. It does not add new information to be an assumption.

(D) would have been a restatement if it said: "  An adult criminal is likely to have been  predisposed as a child to criminal behavior.  a criminal teenager". Instead it states that those children with pre-disposition (according to the passage, it means "conception of right and wrong") are more likely to become teenage criminals. This is new information which we were not given, so it can't be inferred.

jlgdr · Answer

Can we have an expert kindly review this one and tell us the difference between A and D here?

Honestly, I went for A cause D didn't make much of a sense to me. It is not necessary that it will be that way. But anyways, just to check

Cheers!
J

vards · Answer

HELLO FRIEND..!
I thoroughly agree with u..although a child may b xposed to crim. bhaviour,wat if he has a very good company in teenage ..he will most probably mimic him and may not end upp being a criminal...whereas,in A..watever the experience tht child may have,he mostly b inclined to mimic his peers...wat say...!?

vfqrk23 · Answer

Let's see at the two main contenders here, A & D.

What does A say?
[A] A child's conception of whether certain behavior is right or wrong can change during the child's teenage years.
Does any sentence in the premise say or imply that a conception can change? No. The premise only says that a behavior, not a conception, is regularly influenced when a child sees how his peers commit crimes. In other words, a teenager who is predisposed to crimes can also commit a crime with higher probability. However it's not necessarily that he doesn't think such a behavior is bad. His behavior doesn't deny the fact that he has the same conception as he had when he was 10.

On the other hand the premise also says that "...the vast majority of adult criminals also committed crimes as teenagers..."
This is exactly what D paraphrases.
[D] An adult criminal is likely to have been predisposed as a child to criminal behavior.
All we need is to presume that a child is not necessarily a person under 10, but also a teenager.

This is my first explanation. Don't judge me strictly :wink:

riniglory · Answer

Yes option A seems more relevant

Sent from my iPhone using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

AdityaHongunti · Answer

Hello experts, Please shed some light on the correct answer choice.

I chose A. My reasoning- The teenagers have a significant influence on whether the person later acts in accordance with his predisposition. teenagers mimic their peer's behavior.

choice A states - His conception of whether certain behavior is right or wrong CAN CHANGE ( not will change) during child's teenage years.

The CAN CHANGE verb allows the possibilty for no change too. Then how is it wrong.

Please explain why A is wrong.

dave13 · Answer

Hello friends

sinnce I have chosen answer D let me explain my reasoning. here is conclusion: It is interesting to note that the vast majority of adult criminals also committed crimes as teenagers and associated primarily with other teenagers who later became adult criminals. so you need to concentrate on conclusion - some trigger/indirrect key words in this question are as folows: -the vast majority - adult criminals because question revolves around conclusion --- > Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above? A child's conception of whether certain behavior is right or wrong can change during the child's teenage years. A option is totally wrong, because: it concentrates on whole argument, and we need to concentrate on conclusion - in other words last sentence which puts emphasis on "vast majority od adult crimanals" Until a child becomes a teenager it is impossible to predict whether the child will eventually become an adult criminal. B option talks about prediction wether a child will become criminal adult or not, BUT conclusions main point is not a prediction BUT a FACT that vast majority of adult criminals also committed crimes as teenagers. So Option B, is out. we arlready know this. Law-abiding adults are unlikely to have developed a predisposition for adult criminal behavior. C option talks about Law abiding adults which is irrelevant, and nowhere it is mentioned the word "law" Hence it is out . An adult criminal is likely to have been predisposed as a child to criminal behavior. D option is correct Why ? because, dont forget you need to concentrate on conclusion -- Conclusion says: It is interesting to note that the vast majority of adult criminals also committed crimes as teenagers and associated primarily with other teenagers who later became adult criminals. Pre-teen children who are not predisposed to criminal behavior are unlikely to become adult criminals. Option E wants to confuse you

but if you read carefully you will understand that it is total nonsence

We never know that pre-teen children who are not predisposed to criminal behavior are unlikely to become adult criminals. you cant be sure of this because you dont have this information. hence it it out

sucal000 · Answer

In the last line of argument, the word 'teenage' is used.

In option D, the word 'child' is used.

Is there some disconnection here?

Posted from my mobile device

Doer01 · Answer

A child's conception of whether certain behavior is right or wrong, referred to as "behavioral pre-disposition," is fully developed by the age of 10. During a person's teenage years, other teenagers with whom the person associates regularly have a significant influence on whether the person later acts in accordance with his or her predisposition. In other words, teenagers tend to mimic their peers' behavior. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of adult criminals also committed crimes as teenagers and associated primarily with other teenagers who later became adult criminals.

Which of the following conclusions can most properly be drawn from the information above?

A child's conception of whether certain behavior is right or wrong can change during the child's teenage years. Out of scope
  Until a child becomes a teenager it is impossible to predict whether the child will eventually become an adult criminal.—out of scope
  Law-abiding adults are unlikely to have developed a predisposition for adult criminal behavior.—Not mentioned in the passage
  An adult criminal is likely to have been predisposed as a child to criminal behavior. — in-line with our prethinking— correct
  Pre-teen children who are not predisposed to criminal behavior are unlikely to become adult criminals.— not mentioned in passage—irrelevant

Am I wrong or is the OA wrong? Please help.

Premise: right/wrong decision concious — 10yr old
Teenage—peers affect behaviour—mimic other teens’ behaviour
Adult criminals today also committed crimes as teenage and so did other adult criminals whom they grew up with

Prethinking: teenage peers play a major role in deciding how a person is going to turn out as an adult.

ayushgmatclub1 · Answer

I think the passage says this - the child knows for sure what is right or wrong, but then decides whether to do the right thing or not, on the basis of influence of other teenagers. So it is not required for option A to be 100% true.

Hope this helps.

Hope this helps.

A child's conception of whether certain behavior

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A child's conception of whether certain behavior

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards