It is currently 22 Sep 2017, 06:44

### 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

# A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 03 Aug 2012
Posts: 900

Kudos [?]: 857 [0], given: 322

Concentration: General Management, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 680 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2013, 11:30
Hi Plumber,

My query pertains to the FACT that is the LEAP from

"Mental Health"
To
"Physical Disease"
is CORRECT?

Premise talks about "tests of Mental Health" and Conclusion talks about "Immunity and Physical disease relation".

Is that correct?
_________________

Rgds,
TGC!
_____________________________________________________________________
I Assisted You => KUDOS Please
_____________________________________________________________________________

Kudos [?]: 857 [0], given: 322

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 822 [5], given: 5

Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2013, 14:21
5
KUDOS
Expert's post
TGC-

In your previous post you mentioned the key without realizing it. The premise discusses the connection between the immune system and mental illness. You said "Nowhere the argument mentioned PD (Physical Disease) in the premises". Physical Disease is only in the conclusion. Assumptions are the logical gaps between Premises and the Conclusion. Since Physical Disease isn't mentioned in the premises, there isn't a logical gap between premise and conclusion related to Physical Disease. Really, Physical Disease in the conclusion is acting as a distractor in the question. You could read the conclusion like this: "..the immune system protects against mental illness (just like it protects against physical disease)". The core of the conclusion is immune system PROTECTING against mental illness.

Now, let's explore option B just a bit to get fully comfortable that it's not the assumption. B states "Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems." Remember that assumptions are the logical gaps between premises and the conclusion.

Premise: People with low immune system score lower on mental health tests (low immune system and low mental health show up together)
Assumption - GAP
Conclusion: Therefore the immune system PROTECTS against mental health (like it PROTECTS against physical disease)

Is there a logical gap involving the effects? Do we have to assume that the EFFECTS of mental illness have to be the same as the EFFECTS of physical disease to assume that the immune system PROTECTS against mental health? No - the effects are out of the scope of the argument. We are concerned about immune system protecting against mental health problems. The immune system can PROTECT against two things that have very different effects (for example - my front door protects my home & family from the weather and from burglars, which have very different effects on my home & family).

Remember to look at the GAP between premise and conclusion. Premise says that IS & MH happen together & the conclusion states that the immune system PROTECTS against mental health. To believe that conclusion we have to assume that bad mental health doesn't impact the immune system (choice D)

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Kudos [?]: 822 [5], given: 5

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 822 [3], given: 5

Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2013, 21:32
3
KUDOS
Expert's post
I'm responding to a PM on this and thought the response would be valuable for all...

"Hi,
I agree that B may not be the right choice, But can you explain why [C] cannot be right? Here is my line of thought:
-C.People with High Immune system cannot develop mental illness.
As taught, let us assume this is true. If yes, it establishes a direct relation between Mental Illness and Immune system. Incase we negate it [i.e.-People w/ high immunity CAN be mentally ill], the Authors conclusion breaks apart. However, people say that this answer choice is "really strong and unfounded".
However, the same can be said for answer D too. Also, I think answer D weakens the authors argument as if we are to assume mental illness does not cause low immunity, it does not support the conclusion that 'Immune sytem protects agains both physical and mental illness'...
Kindly explain."

People are right when they say that C is "really strong". C goes beyond what was concluded by the argument. The conclusion says that the immune system PROTECTS against mental illness as well as against physical disease. We know that the protection provided by the immune system against physical disease is not without some faults (we all get sick, right?). Therefore, the conclusion is stating that the immune system is REDUCING the incidence or severity of mental illness, not that mental illness cannot develop. Answer choice C goes beyond the conclusion and therefore cannot be the GAP between the premise and the conclusion.

Now, I'll talk about answer choice D. It's a recognizable pattern on GMAT CR problems that goes back to correlation vs. causation. The argument's premise is that there is a correlation between the immune system and mental illness. Then in the conclusion the author is moving from a "correlation" to an actual causation and that it is the immune system that is "causing" the difference in mental illness. Nothing in the argument is stating that it's the immune system that is impacting mental health, so we have to assume that the causation is not in the other direction - Mental Illness does not cause changes in the immune system.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Kudos [?]: 822 [3], given: 5

Intern
Joined: 26 Feb 2014
Posts: 1

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

Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2014, 02:05
KyleWiddison wrote:
B is a very tempting answer here because the conclusion bundles together mental health and physical disease. This problem type, however, is a very specific CR assumption subtype. In this subtype, the argument will present two factors that demonstrate correlation - in this case Immune System and Mental Illness. The conclusion asserts a causation (without any rationale) from one factor to the next - here the argument concludes that the Immune System protects against Mental Illness. The implicit assumption in that line of reasoning is that the causation does NOT go in the other direction or in other words you have to assume that Mental Illness does not impact the immune system. Answer choice D states that assumption correctly.

KW

But why the author mentioned about "physical disease"? It's really confusing
Thx.

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

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10172

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 May 2014, 19:14
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 604

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 41

Schools: Cambridge'16
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 May 2014, 23:44
Yes, it is typical "defender" mode for causal arguments. The assumption eliminate alternative cause, reverse causation (in this case) or data invalidity

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 41

Intern
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 32

Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Schools: ISB '15
GMAT Date: 08-01-2014
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
OG VR2 #7 Pls help [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2014, 09:43
A researcher discovered that people who have low
levels of immune-system activity tend to score much
lower on tests of mental health than do people with
normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher
concluded from this experiment that the immune
system protects against mental illness as well as
against physical disease.
The researcher’s conclusion depends on which of the
following assumptions?

(A) High immune-system activity protects against
mental illness better than normal immunesystem
activity does.
(B) Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its
effects on body systems.
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot
develop mental illness.
(D) Mental illness does not cause people’s immunesystem
activity to decrease.
(E) Psychological treatment of mental illness is not
as effective as is medical treatment.

I am trying to apply pre-thinking here but still getting it wrong.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 32

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 536

Kudos [?]: 586 [0], given: 606

Concentration: Technology, Other
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2014, 06:12
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
arpshriv wrote:
A researcher discovered that people who have low
levels of immune-system activity tend to score much
lower on tests of mental health than do people with
normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher
concluded from this experiment that the immune
system protects against mental illness as well as
against physical disease.
The researcher’s conclusion depends on which of the
following assumptions?

(A) High immune-system activity protects against
mental illness better than normal immunesystem
activity does.
(B) Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its
effects on body systems.
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot
develop mental illness.
(D) Mental illness does not cause people’s immunesystem
activity to decrease.
(E) Psychological treatment of mental illness is not
as effective as is medical treatment.

I am trying to apply pre-thinking here but still getting it wrong.

Can you share ur analysis in terms of premise and conclusion. That wld help to identify the mistake with ur reasoning.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards

Kudos [?]: 586 [0], given: 606

Intern
Joined: 28 Jan 2013
Posts: 34

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 3

Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Oct 2014, 11:28
JarvisR wrote:
arpshriv wrote:
A researcher discovered that people who have low
levels of immune-system activity tend to score much
lower on tests of mental health than do people with
normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher
concluded from this experiment that the immune
system protects against mental illness as well as
against physical disease.
The researcher’s conclusion depends on which of the
following assumptions?

(A) High immune-system activity protects against
mental illness better than normal immunesystem
activity does.
(B) Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its
effects on body systems.
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot
develop mental illness.
(D) Mental illness does not cause people’s immunesystem
activity to decrease.
(E) Psychological treatment of mental illness is not
as effective as is medical treatment.

I am trying to apply pre-thinking here but still getting it wrong.

Can you share ur analysis in terms of premise and conclusion. That wld help to identify the mistake with ur reasoning.

A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.
The researcher’s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?

Conclusion: immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.
Premise: low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity.

As per my analysis, In premise the author did not speak about the immune system's protection against physical diseases. But the conclusion states about the Physical disease. So an answer that fills this gap could be an answer.

(A) High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune system activity does. Irrelevant to draw the conclusion.
(B) Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.
I felt this is the correct answer as this fills in the gap related to physical diseases.
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.
(D) Mental illness does not cause people’s immune system activity to decrease.
(E) Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment. Irrelevant to draw the conclusion.

As C & D are not talking about Physical disease, I thought they are incorrect.

Clearly, I am missing something here. Can someone help?

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 3

Manager
Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Posts: 51

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 151

A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2014, 15:50
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
I choose D.

Among all type of trick one of the trick to crack assumption question is - remove all alternative cause to the problem.
Here it is mention x( low -immune system) cause mental illness and some physical problem.
conclusion - y( high -immune system protect the mental health n pp)

see the cause for the problem that is X and x cause y -make sense
y cause x - reverse- destroy -uncertain
but Y doesn't cause x - is true and states the same point in reverse order.

so assumption is - a patient with low immune system can have mental unsoundness but patient suffering from mental issues not necessarily have low immune system some other cause can be also be responsible - y doesn't cause x.

I am not sure whether it is true or not but i use this Trick - for such question when struck between two option check out extreme word like option c - sounds right but use of "Cannot" doesn't justify argument, as it says good immune system protect against mental illness but will not cause any damage certainly - is not claimed. so c is removed.

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 151

Current Student
Joined: 06 Mar 2014
Posts: 271

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 84

Location: India
GMAT Date: 04-30-2015
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Nov 2014, 06:26
egmat wrote:
supri23 wrote:
ritula wrote:
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much
lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher
concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against
physical disease.
The researcher’s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?
A. High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity
does.
B. Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.
C. People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.
D. Mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease.
E. Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment.

I picked C.I am not finding why c is wrong.Can u explain why c is wrong?

Hi,

To tackle your doubt, let me begin from the passage itself.

Understanding the Passage

A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune-system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity.

This statement talks about a discovery by a researcher. The researcher discovered that people who have

low immune system activity have lower mental health
normal or high immune system activity have better mental health.

So, what he saw was that mental health increased with increase in immune system activity.

The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.

The researcher thought about the reason as to why this pattern exists. He thought an explanation for this pattern is that immune system protects against mental illness or poor mental health. If his explanation is true, then people with lower immune system should have poorer mental health than people with normal or higher immune system activity. This is what he has observed. So, he made the conclusion as stated in the above statement of the passage.

Pre-thinking Assumption

Now, what is the assumption built in the conclusion drawn by the researcher?

The assumption is that there is no other explanation which could explain the given observed pattern. If there are other explanations for the observed pattern, then it would cast a serious doubt on the conclusion drawn by the author.

Now, what could be an alternate explanation?

This could be a hard question for people new to causal arguments but for people who have done some practice of causal arguments, they can figure out the answer to this quite easily.

Remember, the researchers concluded that immune system protects against mental illness because this can explain the observed pattern. Now, if we say that mental illness causes decline in immune system activity, then even this statement could explain the given observed pattern (where both immune system activity and mental health increase or decrease simultaneously). Now, if this could also be an explanation, then the author must have considered this explanation and 'assumed' that this cannot be be true.

So, an assumption in the above argument is that mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease. This is what option D is.

Now, coming to option C:

People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.

First of all, we need to think why does the author need to assume this?Remember a golden rule:

The author assumes only those things without which his argument will not hold true.

For this reason, the 'assumptions' are called must be true statements, which means that the assumptions must be true for the conclusion to hold true.

Now, is Option C a must be true statement?

What if option C is false i.e. People with high immune-system activity can develop mental illness. Will it falsify the conclusion?

The answer is No. The conclusion can still hold even when this statement is false. Therefore, it cannot be an assumption.

Hope this helps

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

Although i completely get THE REVERSE CAUSATION rule that is necessary for the conclusion to hold true.

After going through above explanation, i could not really justify my stand on given points from above (highlighted too):

A) The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.
B) What if option C is false i.e. People with high immune-system activity can develop mental illness. Will it falsify the conclusion?

Now A) concludes that Immune system protects from mental illness and with B) (which is a negation of option C) we get- people with high immune system CAN DEVELOP mental illness.
So isn't this option also breaking the conclusion??

Kudos [?]: 112 [0], given: 84

Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2014
Posts: 93

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 90

Location: India
GPA: 3
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2015, 11:12
Here is how I approached the problem , Please correct me I am wrong
1) Low level of immunity -> Low level of mental health
2) High level of immunity -> High level of mental health
Conclusion: Immunity increases or decreases or governs mental health
Assumption: mental health does not governs immunity
Option D .............. hoooooooooooooooo haaaaaaaaaaaaa
_________________

"Arise, Awake and Stop not till the goal is reached"

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 90

Intern
Joined: 17 Oct 2013
Posts: 14

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2015, 02:19
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hi Experts,
Although I got that option D is correct due to reverse causation, I don't understand why option B is incorrect.
According to me in the first sentence of the premise, only mental health is discussed and not physical disease. So how can we include physical disease along with mental illness in the conclusion part? For this, according to me, we have to assume that mental illness and physical disease are similar. This is given in option B.

Please correct me wherever I am going wrong.

Thanks
Tushar

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 07 Dec 2009
Posts: 107

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 375

GMAT Date: 12-03-2014
Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2015, 02:48
Following is from one of the CR strategy guides downloaded from this forum :
How to break down causality?
1. Find an alternate cause. This is the strongest way to rebuke a causality based stimulus.
2. Show that the change might not occur even when cause occurs or that the effect can occur without the cause.
3. Show that the stated relationship is reversed. This is where you prove that what is perceived to be the effect produces what is thought of as the cause

Hope this helps

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 375

Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 62

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 57

Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Feb 2015, 17:52
earnit wrote:

Although i completely get THE REVERSE CAUSATION rule that is necessary for the conclusion to hold true.

After going through above explanation, i could not really justify my stand on given points from above (highlighted too):

A) The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.
B) What if option C is false i.e. People with high immune-system activity can develop mental illness. Will it falsify the conclusion?

Now A) concludes that Immune system protects from mental illness and with B) (which is a negation of option C) we get- people with high immune system CAN DEVELOP mental illness.
So isn't this option also breaking the conclusion??

Try going over the explanation a few more times, now

Yes, this one's about reverse causation. Specifically, the author notes a correlation between levels of immune system activity and scores on test of mental health, and then uses the mere correlation to conclude a cause-effect relationship. Just because milk and cereal are correlated doesn't mean that one causes the other.

So, the argument concludes that specifically, if you have a good immune system, then you'll have protection against mental illness. The reverse causation could be equally true though: if you have a mental illness, then it could negatively affect your immune system. Answer D negates this possibility - which is the form a "reverse causation" assumption is always going to take. The author must assume that the reverse possibility is NOT the case in order to assume that his cause-effect conclusion IS the case.

Kudos [?]: 63 [0], given: 57

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10172

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2015, 04:58
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Manhattan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 822 [0], given: 5

Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jul 2015, 08:13
boris54 wrote:
But why the author mentioned about "physical disease"? It's really confusing
Thx.

That is precisely why physical disease is added - to confuse you. It is a distractor from the core issue of the argument...the direction of the causation.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Kudos [?]: 822 [0], given: 5

Optimus Prep Instructor
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1905

Kudos [?]: 516 [0], given: 23

Re: A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2015, 17:23
A researcher discovered that people who have low levels of immune system activity tend to score much lower on tests of mental health than do people with normal or high immune-system activity. The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease.

The researcher concludes that the immune system has a protective effect against mental illness because people score lower on mental health tests than the people with normal to high immune-system activity.

The researcher's conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity does. The argument compares normal to high versus low levels so this doesn't affect the argument.
(B) Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.doesn't affect the argument that normal to high immune-system is protective
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.argument only goes as far as to say that it is protective, not that it eliminate the possibility of mental illness
(D) Mental illness does not cause people's immune-system activity to decrease.This is necessary, as otherwise it would reverse the purported causal relationship.
(E) Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment.doesn't affect argument
_________________

# Janielle Williams

Customer Support

Special Offer: \$80-100/hr. Online Private Tutoring
GMAT On Demand Course \$299
Free Online Trial Hour

Kudos [?]: 516 [0], given: 23

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10172

Kudos [?]: 253 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Dec 2015, 14:32
1
KUDOS
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 253 [1], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 01 Aug 2014
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

20 Dec 2015, 04:26
Choice A, C and E are out of scope.
Choice B, it is not relevant, the conclusion do not discuss how effects two kinds of ailment on body systems.
Choice D is correct, It strengthens the conclusion, mental illness not cause immune-system decrease, it means that the immune-system still protect body from physical disease. Negate it, mental illness decrease immune-system, immune-system will not protect against physical disease (weaken the conclusion).

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 3

Re: Mental Health CR   [#permalink] 20 Dec 2015, 04:26

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5    Next  [ 98 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Researchers have recently discovered that approximately 70% of restaur 2 13 Apr 2017, 12:48
5 A researcher discovered that people with higher incidences of physical 3 29 Mar 2017, 04:54
3 Researchers have discovered that caffeine can be as 12 01 Sep 2015, 12:03
Researchers have found that people who drink five or more cups of coff 2 02 Oct 2016, 11:21
20 Medical researchers discovered that people with an atypical 27 06 Jul 2017, 01:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by