After studying a random sample of 1024 individuals who had smoked dail

ARGUMENT
[con] Researchers concluded that a group of smokers vs non-smokers exhibited increased difficulties concentrating.
[asum] Those who smoke don't have some issue with concentrating before smoking, vs non-smokers who usually dont have this.

Ans (E) Smokers have problems concentrating because of preexisting conditions.

From statement we can conclude that - habitual smoking causes increased difficulties in concentrating

so the weakener can be something reverse: that they already have a concentration deficiency before smoking.

(E) A separate research study found that individuals with preexisting attention and concentration disorders exhibited significantly higher rates of trying cigarettes and subsequently becoming addicted to smoking............matches thia pre-thinking

OA:E

After studying a random sample of 1024 individuals who had smoked daily for at least three years and comparing the results of this study with the results of a study of 1024 individuals who had never smoked, a group of researchers concluded that habitual smoking causes increased difficulties in concentrating.
Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the researchers' conclusion?

(A) The addiction to smoking and the cravings this addiction engenders is often on the mind of habitual smokers. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(B) Some non-smokers with attention deficit disorder (ADD), which causes an inability to concentrate, display even less ability to concentrate than some smokers. - WRONG. The degree of comparison in the ability to concentrate is not discussed. Irrelevant.

(C) A separate research study found that smokers and non-smokers exhibited statistically significant differences in their incarceration rates. - WRONG. Rather strengthens somewhat but only with assumptions made. Otherwise irrelevant.

(D) After developing a severe addiction to smoking for fifteen years, the ability of many individuals to concentrate is decreased. - WRONG. Explains the causality and thus strengthens the argument.

(E) A separate research study found that individuals with preexisting attention and concentration disorders exhibited significantly higher rates of trying cigarettes and subsequently becoming addicted to smoking. - CORRECT. Reverses the causality and thus weakens.

IMO Answer E.

conclusion:a group of researchers concluded that habitual smoking causes increased difficulties in concentrating.
IMO E ; A separate research study found that individuals with preexisting attention and concentration disorders exhibited significantly higher rates of trying cigarettes and subsequently becoming addicted to smoking.
this option provides an alternate reasoning and weakens the arguement.


After studying a random sample of 1024 individuals who had smoked daily for at least three years and comparing the results of this study with the results of a study of 1024 individuals who had never smoked, a group of researchers concluded that habitual smoking causes increased difficulties in concentrating.

Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the researchers' conclusion?

(A) The addiction to smoking and the cravings this addiction engenders is often on the mind of habitual smokers.

(B) Some non-smokers with attention deficit disorder (ADD), which causes an inability to concentrate, display even less ability to concentrate than some smokers.

(C) A separate research study found that smokers and non-smokers exhibited statistically significant differences in their incarceration rates.

(D) After developing a severe addiction to smoking for fifteen years, the ability of many individuals to concentrate is decreased.

(E) A separate research study found that individuals with preexisting attention and concentration disorders exhibited significantly higher rates of trying cigarettes and subsequently becoming addicted to smoking.

I will go with option E.

This argument can be analyzed as a cause and effect argument.
Cause: habitual smoking
Effect: difficulties in concentration.
Conclusion: habitual smoking causes difficulties in concentration.

The best weakener for cause and effect arguments is when the stated effect is rather proven to be the cause and the cause in the argument is the effect.

Option E states that a separate research study found that individuals with preexisting attention and concentration disorders exhibited significantly higher rates of trying cigarettes and subsequently becoming addicted to smoking. This actually reverses the cause and effect relation in the argument based on which a conclusion has been made that habitual smoking causes difficulties in concentration. So, option E, in my view, is the best weakener for the argument above.

Why not option B? The conclusion of the argument is not based on non-smokers. So although this option attacks a premise on which the argument is made, it does not weaken the argument as much as option E does.

i would go with E because it might be the case when the lack of concentration is the reason to resort to smoking that is the reverse of what argument is trying to establish is true , therefore it weakens the argument

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The researchers' conclusion is: "habitual smoking causes increased difficulties in concentrating"

The group of researchers confuses correlation with causation. In other words, the group concludes that a correlation between smoking and an inability to concentrate implies that smoking causes an inability to concentrate. Perhaps it is the other way around and an inability to concentrate causes individuals to become distracted and take up smoking. Evidence to support this counter theory would weaken the researchers' conclusion.

A. This answer strengthens (not weakens) the original argument as it provides an explanation for how habitual smoking increases difficulties in concentrating after becoming hooked.

B. The answer deals only with some ADD non-smokers and some smokers so it does not provide any solid evidence and justification to weaken or reject the original argument. Further, it is not logical to compare the concentration ability of individuals with an attention deficit condition to other individuals who do not have an attention deficit condition.

C. The incarceration rate is irrelevant in determining the relationship between concentration and smoking. Whether smokers are incarcerated at higher or lower rates does not enable us to strengthen or weaken the causal relationship between smoking and concentration proposed in the original argument.

D. This strengthens (not weakens) the original argument as it intensifies the causal relationship between smoking and subsequent difficulties concentrating.

E. This additional study pinpoints that individuals with preexisting (or already established) concentration difficulties subsequently became addicted to smoking. This pinpoints that the smoking could not have caused the attention and concentration difficulties (as these difficulties already existed prior to becoming addicted).

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.