|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
02 Nov 2020, 09:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
imSKR
Hello, imSKR. Your approach is more structured than my own. For instance, I do not negate answer choices at all, although I can appreciate how that method works for others, and the steps in my mind often coexist. However, I urge you to pursue such a structured method to assumption questions if it works for you. The analysis you have written is well done. Keep it up.
- Andrew
20 May 2023, 02:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
To support the researcher's conclusion that the immune system protects against mental illness, we need to identify the assumption on which the conclusion depends. Let's evaluate each option:
(A) High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity does.
This option is not necessary for the researcher's conclusion. The conclusion is based on the observation that low immune-system activity is associated with lower mental health scores, so it does not rely on the comparative effectiveness of high immune-system activity.
(B) Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.
This option is not necessary for the researcher's conclusion. While it draws a parallel between mental illness and physical disease, the conclusion is based on the observed correlation between immune-system activity and mental health, rather than the specific effects on body systems.
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.
This option is not necessary for the researcher's conclusion. The conclusion is based on the relationship between low immune-system activity and lower mental health scores, so it does not require the assumption that people with high immune-system activity are immune to mental illness.
(D) Mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease.
This option is necessary for the researcher's conclusion. The conclusion rests on the idea that low immune-system activity is associated with lower mental health scores. If mental illness caused people's immune-system activity to decrease, it would undermine the researcher's claim that the immune system protects against mental illness.
(E) Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as medical treatment.
This option is not necessary for the researcher's conclusion. The conclusion is about the relationship between immune-system activity and mental illness, and it does not directly address the relative effectiveness of psychological and medical treatments.
In conclusion, the assumption that the researcher's conclusion depends on is D: Mental illness does not cause people's immune-system activity to decrease. This assumption is necessary for the conclusion that the observed correlation between immune-system activity and mental health is indicative of the immune system protecting against mental illness.
(A) High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity does.
This option is not necessary for the researcher's conclusion. The conclusion is based on the observation that low immune-system activity is associated with lower mental health scores, so it does not rely on the comparative effectiveness of high immune-system activity.
(B) Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems.
This option is not necessary for the researcher's conclusion. While it draws a parallel between mental illness and physical disease, the conclusion is based on the observed correlation between immune-system activity and mental health, rather than the specific effects on body systems.
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness.
This option is not necessary for the researcher's conclusion. The conclusion is based on the relationship between low immune-system activity and lower mental health scores, so it does not require the assumption that people with high immune-system activity are immune to mental illness.
(D) Mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease.
This option is necessary for the researcher's conclusion. The conclusion rests on the idea that low immune-system activity is associated with lower mental health scores. If mental illness caused people's immune-system activity to decrease, it would undermine the researcher's claim that the immune system protects against mental illness.
(E) Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as medical treatment.
This option is not necessary for the researcher's conclusion. The conclusion is about the relationship between immune-system activity and mental illness, and it does not directly address the relative effectiveness of psychological and medical treatments.
In conclusion, the assumption that the researcher's conclusion depends on is D: Mental illness does not cause people's immune-system activity to decrease. This assumption is necessary for the conclusion that the observed correlation between immune-system activity and mental health is indicative of the immune system protecting against mental illness.
05 Dec 2023, 16:35
Kudos
Bookmarks
Understanding the argument -
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. - Fact. Presents a correlation between people with a "low" level of the immune system and a "normal or high" level of the immune system. People with "low" levels of immune system score lower on tests (of mental health) than the people with "normal or high" levels of immune system.
The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease. - Conclusion. So, the author converts the correlation to causation in this sentence by saying that the "immune system" protects against "mental illness," and he/she adds "physical disease as well."
So, if we say A and B are correlated in the statement, and the conclusion tries to establish one relationship, say A causes B, then we need to assume that "Z did not cause B or Z did not cause A and B, and B did not cause A. Because three relationships are possible - A causes B, B causes A, and Z causes B.
Option Elimination
(A) High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity does. - In the argument, "high or normal" is one category compared with "low." The argument does not compare "normal" and "high". Moreover, how is it even a minimum condition or missing premise for the conclusion, "the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease." Out of scope? Yes.
(B) Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems. - These two words appear in the conclusion, but the similarity between the two is not the minimum condition for the conclusion to hold. Distortion.
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness. - The conclusion says the "immune system" protects against "mental illness." It can be "normal or the high" immune system. See, the conclusion is trying to establish "Causality" between the "immune system," which can be "normal or high," and "mental illness." The conclusion doesn't say that having an "immune system" is a sufficient condition for protection against "mental illness" or that having an "immune system" guarantees protection against "mental illness." Right? Yes. Mental illness is complex and multifaceted, influenced by various factors beyond just the immune system, such as genetics, environment, lifestyle, and more.
But this option is trying to establish a sufficient conditional relationship to guarantee that one cannot develop mental illness if one has a high immune system. This is not the scope of the argument. The scope of the argument is to establish causality, for which we need to assume that B did not cause A or Z did not cause B. Establishing sufficiency is not even the scope of the argument.
There is an easier way to eliminate this (though not foolproof, so use it cautiously). What is an assumption? Is it a missing premise? What is the premise? It's a Fact. What is this statement? It's an opinion. Wrong.
(D) Mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease. - good. It says B did not cause A. ok.
(E) Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment. - Out of scope.
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. - Fact. Presents a correlation between people with a "low" level of the immune system and a "normal or high" level of the immune system. People with "low" levels of immune system score lower on tests (of mental health) than the people with "normal or high" levels of immune system.
The researcher concluded from this experiment that the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease. - Conclusion. So, the author converts the correlation to causation in this sentence by saying that the "immune system" protects against "mental illness," and he/she adds "physical disease as well."
So, if we say A and B are correlated in the statement, and the conclusion tries to establish one relationship, say A causes B, then we need to assume that "Z did not cause B or Z did not cause A and B, and B did not cause A. Because three relationships are possible - A causes B, B causes A, and Z causes B.
Option Elimination
(A) High immune-system activity protects against mental illness better than normal immune-system activity does. - In the argument, "high or normal" is one category compared with "low." The argument does not compare "normal" and "high". Moreover, how is it even a minimum condition or missing premise for the conclusion, "the immune system protects against mental illness as well as against physical disease." Out of scope? Yes.
(B) Mental illness is similar to physical disease in its effects on body systems. - These two words appear in the conclusion, but the similarity between the two is not the minimum condition for the conclusion to hold. Distortion.
(C) People with high immune-system activity cannot develop mental illness. - The conclusion says the "immune system" protects against "mental illness." It can be "normal or the high" immune system. See, the conclusion is trying to establish "Causality" between the "immune system," which can be "normal or high," and "mental illness." The conclusion doesn't say that having an "immune system" is a sufficient condition for protection against "mental illness" or that having an "immune system" guarantees protection against "mental illness." Right? Yes. Mental illness is complex and multifaceted, influenced by various factors beyond just the immune system, such as genetics, environment, lifestyle, and more.
But this option is trying to establish a sufficient conditional relationship to guarantee that one cannot develop mental illness if one has a high immune system. This is not the scope of the argument. The scope of the argument is to establish causality, for which we need to assume that B did not cause A or Z did not cause B. Establishing sufficiency is not even the scope of the argument.
There is an easier way to eliminate this (though not foolproof, so use it cautiously). What is an assumption? Is it a missing premise? What is the premise? It's a Fact. What is this statement? It's an opinion. Wrong.
(D) Mental illness does not cause people’s immune-system activity to decrease. - good. It says B did not cause A. ok.
(E) Psychological treatment of mental illness is not as effective as is medical treatment. - Out of scope.
