Antoine: The alarming fact is that among children aged 19 years and yo

Dear amatya,
I'm happy to respond.

MGMAT writes good questions, and this is a good one. Part of what is tricky about it is that you have to read through the lines to the emotional subtext.

Antoine presents this "alarming fact," and it's clear that he is a bit alarmed by this information. A 73% increase! That's huge! It's as if all the children are going to go insane! It's like a [urlhttps://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/doors/theend.html]DOORS song[/url]! His position is one of panic.

Lucy essentially says: take a chill pill. There's no reason to panic. In fact, Lucy only states facts, but the nature of this facts undercut all the claims that made Antoine fearful. Antoine was fearful that children were using these medicines at rates much higher than adults, and the numbers that Lucy cites makes it patently clear that this is not the case. Lucy contributes facts that rein in Antoine's unreasonable fears.

(A) normal levels of antipsychotic drug use are rarely exceeded.
No one is taking about the levels of the drugs in this argument. This is out of scope. This is incorrect.

(B) the percentage of adults taking antipsychotic medication is always higher than the percentage of children on such medication.
The word "always" makes this answer choice completely unreasonable in its absolute claim. This is incorrect.

(C) the use of antipsychotic medication in children is no different from the use of such medications in adults.
Reasonable. This is entirely consistent with Lucy's moderating claim. If the use were different, then comparing the adult percentage to children percentage might not be so relevant. This is a promising choice.

(D) Antoine is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents.
This is irrelevant. If Antoine is distorting the fact, then the sensible numbers quoted by Lucy are all the more moderating. This is incorrect.

(E) a rapid increase in the number of children taking antipsychotic drugs generates more fear of random violence by adolescents than does knowledge of the absolute number of children on such medications.
Whoa! Why are we talking about random violence? That's a bit leap. There are many reasons one might be troubled to hear that a large number of people are on antipsychotic medication, and random violence is just one of these reasons. This is far to specific with information not discussed at all in the prompt. This is incorrect.

The only answer that could possibly be correct is the OA, (C).

You may find this blog article germane:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/gmat-criti ... knowledge/

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Antoine is alarmed that the number of children on antipsychotic medication has increased by 73 percent. Lucy begins her reply with “but,” indicating that she is about to counter either Antoine’s facts or his alarm; she accepts his facts but addresses his alarm. If the number of children taking antipsychotic medication is still within the normal range, the rate at which the total number has increased is not cause for alarm. Lucy uses information about adult use of such drugs to imply that the lower rate of antipsychotic drug use in children must also be normal.

(A) Lucy’s argument is about a normal level of antipsychotic drug use; how rarely or frequently that level is exceeded is outside the scope of her argument.

(B) Lucy uses the percentage of adults taking antipsychotic medication to illustrate normal levels of the use of such drugs. It happens that the percentage of children taking such medication last year was lower than the percentage of adults, but her argument does not require the assumption that that will always be the case.

(C) CORRECT. If there is no difference between children and adults on the matter of antipsychotic drug use, then Lucy can legitimately use information about adult use of such drugs to imply that the lower rate of antipsychotic drug use by children must also be normal. On the other hand, if this assumption were not valid – for example, if children responded differently to the drugs, or if the rate of the drug use by adults is considered too high for children – then Lucy’s statement would not be enough to address Antoine’s alarm.

(D) Lucy’s argument is not based on the figure Antoine cites and does not assume its accuracy or inaccuracy. Rather, her argument uses the relative adult and child rates of antipsychotic drug use to point out that Antoine’s statistic is not inconsistent with a normal rate of such use in children.

(E) The fear of random violence by adolescents is not part of Lucy’s argument; this statement is irrelevant.
_________________

I think the explanation needs to be clarified. Lucy's conclusion, which is not directly stated, is: It is NOT alarming that antipsychotic drug use among children increased more than among adults over the past 4 years. (Note that you have to read the other person's argument in order to see what her conclusion is. This is fairly common in this type of question.) Her single piece of evidence for this conclusion is the fact that the rate of antipsychotic drug use among children is still much lower than the rate among adults.

What assumption does her argument depend on? Clearly, it depends on assuming that the "normal" or "appropriate" rate of use of this type of medication is the same for children for adults -- or at least, that the "normal" rate for children is not lower. Choice C provides this assumption.

Choice A is irrelevant. The argument turns on what the normal level for children IS. If the normal level is actually much lower than the level for adults, then the actual level of use may exceed it, and Antoine is correct. If the normal level is about the same, then the actual level probably doesn't exceed it, and Lucy is correct. So either the normal level is exceeded or it isn't, regardless of A.

Choice B is the opposite of what is needed. It says that the level for adults is "always" higher. If this is true, then it contradicts the assumption that Lucy needs, which is that the level should be about the same.

Lucy: But the use of antipsychotic drugs by adults is considered normal at the current rate of 11 adults per 1,000 taking the drugs. In contrast, the number of children on antipsychotic medication last year was 6.6 per 1,000 children.

Should be C because Lucy is trying to show that the use of drugs in children is somehow okay (or lower) compared to adults. Hence, she must assume that the use of drugs in adults and children is the same.

mikemcgarry i didnt quite understand this. Such questions usually throw me off my gmat game. CR seems to look good for me and bang! such a question comes along and i am gone any suggestions?

Dear debaratidg,
I'm happy to respond. I will begin by suggesting this blog:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/how-to-im ... bal-score/
I would say that the best way for you to develop a sense for the diversity of forms that the GMAT CR could throw at you, you need to be reading real world arguments. Look at news sources --- the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist magazine, Bloomberg Businessweek, etc. These source regularly feature arguments by politicians and folks in business. Read these arguments, and analyze them--- what are the conclusions? what are the assumptions? what would strengthen or weaken each argument? what information would you need to evaluate the argument? Also, notice that the author of the article is often making a much more subtle argument by his arrangement of the people he quotes and the questions he poses: pay attention to the subtle arguments at that level as well. If you can understand all the different ways people make arguments in the real business world, then you will be able to handle the GMAT.

This is a very important skill to master. If you don't understand an argument on the GMAT, you get one question wrong. If you don't understand an argument in a crucial business deal, you may miss out on a valuable opportunity for your company to make millions of dollars.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

I do not think Choice C is the assumption because it does not have to be true for the conclusion to hold. Choice C just tells that the reason for consumption of antipsychotic drugs is the same for both adults and children. Let us negate this - Lets say that the reason for taking antipsychotic drugs in children is epilepsy while in adults it is depression. This doesn't make a difference in the argument. Lucy can still make the comparison for justifying her claim.
Also, I find it weird when Lucy compares the consumption rate - 11 adults per 1,000 taking the drugs vs 6.6 per 1,000 children. It would have made much more sense if it said 11 adults per 1,000 adults. Also, she compares current rate in case of adults to last year rate in case of children. This comparison had me question so many things and therefore so many assumptions.

A – This is irrelevant

B – “always” makes this an absolute claim, so it is incorrect

C – Correct

D – Also irrelevant, Antoine’s intentions have nothing to do with anything.

E – Introduces new information, not discussed in the prompt, and is far too specific.



C fits with the claims that Lucy makes and provides information that strengthens her claim by eliminating a potential variable. If there was a difference in how antipsychotics were used in children and adults, the rate of usage would become less relevant.

Antonie is saying that the number of children taking anti psychotic medicines is alarmingly high.
Lucy is saying that the the number of children taking anti psychotic medicines is normal.
Lucy gives the reason that now 11 adults per 1,000 take the drugs and it is considered normal. Since among children , only 6.6 per 1,000 children take anti psychotic drugs , so for children also the number is normal.
In drawing the conclusion that for both adult and children the number is normal , Lucy assumes that "the use of antipsychotic medication in children is no different from the use of such medications in adults."
Option C is the correct answer.
Please give me KUDOs if you liked my answer.
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma generis

Responding to a pm: Why is (C) an assumption here?

Lucy's argument just gives facts and hence it is a bit difficult to say where she is going with those. The words "but" in the beginning and "in contrast" later are the main indicators that she is rebutting Antoine's argument.

Antoine: The alarming fact is 73% more children are taking meds, more than increase in adults.
Lucy: But the number 11 in 1000 are normal for adults. In contrast, it is 6.6 in 1000 for children (so even lower for children). (Hence, no worries!)

Basically Lucy is trying to say that it is not a big deal. Nothing to be alarmed about. She is assuming that use of these meds in children is no different from the use of these meds in adults.

But what if the actual "normal" numbers for children is 1 in 1000 but the actual number right now is 6.6 i.e. what if the use of these meds in children is different from the use of these meds in adults? Then Lucy's argument does not hold. Hence (C) is an assumption.
_________________

Great learning from this question. Everyone gave valuable input and as a combined result, I was able to understand why the correct answer is CORRECT.
Mike was v right I saying that by practicing more variety of CR questions, we CAN control CR.
SIMILARLY, Karishma plainly told that Donot worry, if the adult normal level/barrier is NOT crossed so it MEANS ALLIS WELL.
In the end, I request all helpful fellows to post such mind opening questions, so that we can learn more by broadening our vision.

Best Regards to all participants,

Basim.

Posted from my mobile device

A's Premise: the number of medicine taken by children (<=19 yr old) increased 73% during last year
A's Premise: while the number of medicine taken by adults is slower (the percentage)
A's conclusion: this is alarming

L's Premise: the current number of adult who used the drug is considered normal
L's Premise: the number of children who used the drug is even lower

Question: assumption of Lucy

Clearly L argues against A in a way that even the increase percentage itself is striking (73%) but the actual number is low (6.6 per 1000).

A) extreme word "rarely" was not mentioned, and the frequency of exceeding normal level is out of scope
B) extreme word "always" was not warranted
C) correct, this makes the case of children comparable to that of adults. Meaning both cases are considered normal, so don't panic dude
D) whether he is or not is out of scope here.
E) "fear", "random violence" and "adolescents" are not even mentioned by argument

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.
_________________