KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE
This stem contains a wealth of helpful information. Not only do you see the telltale key word “weaken” indicating the question type, but the conclusion of the argument is stated directly in the stem. Part of your job is already done.

STEP 2: UNTANGLE THE STIMULUS
The conclusion of the pediatricians is that pet birds are more likely to bite young children than bite older people. The evidence for this is a study, which should ring alarm bells for representativeness issues. The study indicates that most bird-bite injuries that required medical attention were to young children.

STEP 3: PREDICT THE ANSWER
But not all bird bites necessarily require medical attention, so in order for this study’s results to prove that birds are more likely to bite young children overall, you need proof that the bird bites requiring medical attention are representative of all bird bites. So to weaken this argument, find a choice that essentially says, “Bites that require medical attention are not representative of bites in general.”

STEP 4: EVALUATE THE CHOICES
You’ll then be drawn to (A): looking at all bird-bite injuries reveals that most of them don’t require medical attention, and of those that don’t, more than half of them are suffered by people over the age of 13. (A) indicates that birds are just as likely, if not more likely, to bite people over the age of 13 as to bite younger children. Thus, (A) is the correct answer. Just because senior citizens are more likely to die from bird bites, as (B) says, doesn’t mean that they’re more likely to be bitten in the first place. (C) improperly seizes on the last sentence of the argument, which is a tangential statement that has no bearing on the overall conclusion. (D) is off base because the argument deals with the likelihood that a bird will bite someone, not with the likelihood that the bite is serious. (E) commits a similar error by dealing with treatment; this argument is only concerned with the relative frequency of bird bites occurring in the first place and not with the treatment plans for bites that have already occurred.
_________________

IMO A

(A) More than half of bird bites not requiring medical attention, which exceed the number requiring such attention, involve people aged 13 and older

- It goes against the argument by stating the people who get bitten by a bird are greater in the age group 13 and older.

Keep A

(B) The majority of bird bites resulting in the death of the bitten person involve people aged 65 and older.

- The argument is about likeness of attack and not the death of a bitten person. Irrelevant Eliminate
Tip: whenever an option goes too extreme, it is usually incorrect

(C) Many serious bird bites affecting children under age 13 are inflicted by birds other than cockatiels and parakeets.

- The argument is not about the seriousness of bird bites and the type of bird. Irrelevant. Eliminate

(D) Most bird bites in children under age 13 that require medical attention are far less serious than they initially appear.

- Similar to (C), the argument is not about the seriousness of bird bite. Irrelevant. Eliminate

(E) Most parents can learn to treat bird bites effectively if they avail themselves of a small amount of medical information.

- Goes beyond the argument by talking about treating the bird bite. Out of scope and Irrelevant. Eliminate

Conclusion: birds are more likely to bite children under age 13 than people of any other age group.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the pediatricians’ conclusion that birds are more likely to bite children under age 13 than people of any other age group?

(A) More than half of bird bites not requiring medical attention, which exceed the number requiring such attention, involve people aged 13 and older.

Clearly A weakens the conclusion by stating that majority of bird bites which involves people aged 13 or above doesn't require any medical attention. So from this clearly we can state that birds are likely to bite people aged 13 and above.

The team’s finding: The majority of all bird bites requiring medical attention involved children under 13.

Pre-thinking: We need to see, how can we weaken the majority requires medical attention.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the pediatricians’ conclusion that birds are more likely to bite children under age 13 than people of any other age group?

(A) More than half of bird bites not requiring medical attention, which exceed the number requiring such attention, involve people aged 13 and older. -> So, more people aged 13 and older, don't require medical attention. It is weakening the "majority" claim. Let's keep it.

(B) The majority of bird bites resulting in the death of the bitten person involve people aged 65 and older. -> Deaths may be assigned to higher aged people, but we don't know who requires medical attentions after birds bites.

(C) Many serious bird bites affecting children under age 13 are inflicted by birds other than cockatiels and parakeets. -> If we look closely, cockatiels and parakeets are most of the birds, not only birds. Incorrect.

(D) Most bird bites in children under age 13 that require medical attention are far less serious than they initially appear. -> We are talking about "medical attention", not seriousness. Incorrect.

(E) Most parents can learn to treat bird bites effectively if they avail themselves of a small amount of medical information. -> treatment is different issue, we are concerned with "medical attention".

So, I think A.

IMO A

A team of pediatricians recently announced that pet birds are more likely to bite children under age 13 than people of any other age group. The team’s finding was based on a study showing that the majority of all bird bites requiring medical attention involved children under 13. The study also found that the birds most likely to bite are cockatiels and parakeets.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the pediatricians’ conclusion that birds are more likely to bite children under age 13 than people of any other age group?

Conclusion: majority of all bird bites requiring medical attention involved children under 13
To weaken : Prove that there is an alternate factor involved as well / some bites go unreported / very few out of the TOTAL are treated

(A) More than half of bird bites not requiring medical attention, which exceed the number requiring such attention, involve people aged 13 and older.
Weakens the conclusion.
Correct- Inline with our pre-thinking

(B) The majority of bird bites resulting in the death of the bitten person involve people aged 65 and older.
Irrelevant

(C) Many serious bird bites affecting children under age 13 are inflicted by birds other than cockatiels and parakeets.
Still makes it a bird bite - does not weaken

(D) Most bird bites in children under age 13 that require medical attention are far less serious than they initially appear.
Irrelevant

(E) Most parents can learn to treat bird bites effectively if they avail themselves of a small amount of medical information.
Irrelevant

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.
_________________