A group of scientists have studied schizophrenics in an isolated

Question

A group of scientists have studied schizophrenics in an isolated community in Costa Rica with the objective of learning about the causes of schizophrenia worldwide. A flaw in this strategy is that schizophrenia is characterized by impaired emotional responses, and the way emotional responses are learned may differ across cultures of the world. It might even be fair to say that, on what is now a largely interconnected planet, a schizophrenic in an isolated community is a schizophrenic of no practical interest.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument made above about the group's approach?

A. All schizophrenics have certain features in common which, if studied, would help scientists to learn about the causes of schizophrenia in general.

B. Living in an urban environment during childhood or as an adult doubles the risk of schizophrenia in an individual.

C. To understand schizophrenia, it is necessary to learn about not just impaired emotional responses, but also paranoid beliefs, hallucinations, and disorganized thinking.

D. The group of scientists will not draw conclusions about schizophrenics as a whole from their findings in the isolated community.

E. Of the schizophrenics present in the isolated community, more than half have travelled abroad in their adulthood.

This is a  Data Sufficiency Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

ribbons · Answer

Schitzo is being studied (premise) but impaired emotional responses cant be studied (flaw) hence this study has no value (conclusion)

We need to weaken hence assumption should state that the study has value

B these ppl already have schitzo so doesnt matter where they could have possibly been raised out of scope
C good answer but we dont know if we are able to study these other things 
D changes the point of the study altogether - irrelevant
E irrelevant

Hence A and if we negate it out new conclusion falls apart

tgsankar10 · Answer

A: Correct.  Cause of schizophrenia can be studied using some common features in schizophrenics irrespective of their cultural background.
B:  NO . Risk of schizophrenia is irrelevant
C:  NO.  This may be discussing about the method of experiments done by group of scientists. Irrelevant
D:  NO.  It is actually the opposite is the purpose of study.
E:  NO.  Exposure of patients to multiple countries is irrelevant

Answer is A

captain0612 · Answer

IMO Choice A

Premise  - Group of scientists studied schizophrenics in an isolated community to learn about the causes of schizophrenia worldwide.
 Evidence  - Flaw in the above strategy: schizophrenia is characterised by impaired emotional responses, and these responses vary across cultures. 
 Conclusion  - The learnings from schizophrenics in an isolated community are of no practical use.

Question - Weaken.

A. All schizophrenics have certain features in common which, if studied, would help scientists to learn about the causes of schizophrenia in general.   Correct  Even though the emotional responses may differ across cultures, there are few traits that are common irrespective of geography or culture etc... So, by focussing on these common traits scientists can understand more about the causes of schizophrenia in general. This choice invalidates author's reasoning by providing additional information about the scientist's strategy that has a practical value.

B. Living in an urban environment during childhood or as an adult doubles the risk of schizophrenia in an individual.  Environment plays role in the responses too, so instead of weakening the argument it is strengthen it  Incorrect

C. To understand schizophrenia, it is necessary to learn about not just impaired emotional responses, but also paranoid beliefs, hallucinations, and disorganized thinking.  We clearly do not know how these additional traits (paranoid beliefs, hallucinations etc..) are impacted by scientist's strategy  Incorrect

D. The group of scientists will not draw conclusions about schizophrenics as a whole from their findings in the isolated community.  This choice is slightly extreme. All the argument is saying is that the findings are of no practical use, whether these are conclusions or learnnigs about schizophrenia doesn't matter. As long as we can establish that the strategy could yield results that are of practical use, we can weaken the argument. This choice is not necessary  Incorrect

E. Of the schizophrenics present in the isolated community, more than half have travelled abroad in their adulthood.  Ok so there are few schizophrenics who might have experienced real world or various cultures. Now, how is this undermining the strategy that studying them in isolation is of no practical use? No, we cant  Incorrect

Legenddary1234 · Answer

IMO B

To weaken the argument about the flawed approach of studying schizophrenics in an isolated community in Costa Rica, we need to find a statement that challenges the claim that differences in cultural learning of emotional responses render the findings ungeneralizable or of limited practical interest.

(A) This statement directly weakens the argument by suggesting that there are common features among all schizophrenics regardless of their cultural or geographic context. If true, studying these common features would provide valuable insights into the general causes of schizophrenia, thereby making the findings from the isolated community potentially useful for understanding schizophrenia worldwide.

(B) While this statement provides additional context about environmental factors influencing schizophrenia, it does not directly address the issue of cultural differences in emotional learning or the generalizability of findings from an isolated community.

(C) This option broadens the scope of what needs to be understood about schizophrenia but does not directly challenge the claim that findings from an isolated community might not be generalizable due to different cultural learning of emotional responses.

(D) This statement indicates a cautious approach by the scientists but doesn't inherently weaken the argument about the generalizability of the findings. It simply states that the scientists will not overextend their conclusions, which doesn't challenge the initial criticism.

(E) Although this option suggests some level of global exposure among the community members, it doesn't sufficiently address whether the core emotional learning, potentially influenced by their primary culture, aligns with global norms or impacts the generalizability of the findings.

Therefore, option (A) is the most effective at weakening the argument by suggesting that the study's findings could indeed contribute to a broader understanding of schizophrenia, despite the cultural isolation of the community.

bronaugust · Answer

To solve this question, let us deploy    IMS's four-step technique   .

STEP #1  ->   IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE BY READING THE QUESTION STEM

The question stem states, 'Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument made above about the group's approach?' Clearly, we are dealing with a weakening question. Now that the question type is identified, let us proceed to the second step.

STEP #2   ->   DECONSTRUCT THE ARGUMENT

In a weakening question, it is a must to deconstruct the argument by figuring out the conclusion and the premise(s) on the basis of which the conclusion is drawn.

CONCLUSION:   There is a flaw in the strategy of the group of scientists who have studied schizophrenia in an isolated community in Costa Rica with the objective of learning about the causes of schizophrenia worldwide.

PREMISES:   -> Schizophrenia is characterized by the way emotional responses are learned, and the way emotional responses are learned may differ across  cultures of the world.
                   -> On what is now a largely interconnected planet, a schizophrenic in an isolated community is a schizophrenic of no practical interest.

Now that the argument is deconstructed, let us proceed to the third step .

STEP #3  ->   FRAME A SHADOW ANSWER

In a weakening question, the right answer must weaken the conclusion of the author. The right answer here must therefore give us a situation that states the approach adopted by the group of scientists is actually not flawed. An effective way of weakening the conclusion is by showcasing a situation that states studying schizophrenics in the isolated community is going to help them achieve their goal by learning about the causes of schizophrenia worldwide.

SHADOW ANSWER:   A situation that tells us that the strategy adopted by scientists is not flawed by showcasing how studying schizophrenics in the isolated community is going to help them achieve their goal of learning about the causes of schizophrenia worldwide.

Now that a shadow answer is framed, let us proceed to the final step.

STEP #4  ->   ELIMINATE INCORRECT ANSWER OPTIONS

All answer options that do not match the shadow answer can be eliminated.

A. All schizophrenics have certain features in common which, if studied, would help scientists to learn about the causes of schizophrenia in general. -   ALIGNS WITH THE SHADOW ANSWER /WEAKENS   -  Our right answer must prove why the strategy is not flawed. This option tells us how studying the schizophrenics in the isolated community could still help the scientists achieve their goal of learning about the causes of schizophrenia in general. The author's conclusion is weakened.  -   KEEP

B. Living in an urban environment during childhood or as an adult doubles the risk of schizophrenia in an individual. -   NOT A MATCH   -  The right answer should tell us how the scientists would be able to meet their objectives. This answer option speaks of what doubles the risk of schizophrenia, which is not what we are looking for in the right answer.  -   ELIMINATE

C. To understand schizophrenia, it is necessary to learn about not just impaired emotional responses, but also paranoid beliefs, hallucinations, and disorganized thinking. -   NOT A MATCH   -  Again, does not tell me how the scientists would be able to meet their objective.  -   ELIMINATE

D. The group of scientists will not draw conclusions about schizophrenics as a whole from their findings in the isolated community. -   NOT A MATCH   -  While this tells us what the group of scientists will not do, it does not state how their objective of learning about the causes in general would be achieved by studying the schizophrenics in the isolated community.  -   ELIMINATE

E. Of the schizophrenics present in the isolated community, more than half have travelled abroad in their adulthood. -   NOT A MATCH   -  Again, this option does not state how the objective of the scientists would be achieved by studying the schizophrenics in the isolated community.  -   ELIMINATE

Hence, A is the right answer.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Reading the question: this question contains opinions, so we can digest it by finding and categorizing opinions. We've got a plan and a criticism of the plan, so there are two bodies of opinion: what the scientists think, and what the author thinks.

Creating a filter: more specifically, we are asked to weaken what the author thinks--we are weakening the criticism of the plan. The gist of this criticism is the second sentence; the final sentence is mostly puffery. The essence of sentence #2 is that, since emotional responses differ by geography, scientists will not find the causes of schizophrenia in a concentrated area. We could attack this view primarily by asserting that, even though emotional aspects of schizophrenia might differ by geography, the causes of schizophrenia don't. So we predict that the correct answer choice, a weakening statement, will be like, "even though emotional aspects of schizophrenia might differ by geography, the causes of schizophrenia don't."

Applying the filter: choice (A) is similar to our expectation, while choice (B) is not. Choice (C) is similar, but it fails to connect to or mention the causes of schizophrenia. Choice (D) weakens the wrong thing--it weakens the scientists' view that their plan will work. Choice (E) disputes the evidence, not the argument, and it doesn't dispute the evidence well, since it concerns adulthood and the evidence concerns childhood, presumably.

Logical proof: we are left with (A), which we can confirm through the negation test. If there are no common features linked to the causation of the disease, the scientists' plan would surely fail. Therefore, the statement in (A) is material to both the plan and the criticism of the plan.

The correct answer is (A).

A group of scientists have studied schizophrenics in an isolated

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 group of scientists have studied schizophrenics in an isolated

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