Last visit was: 26 Apr 2026, 20:50 It is currently 26 Apr 2026, 20:50
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
AshutoshB
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Last visit: 16 Jan 2022
Posts: 322
Own Kudos:
2,320
 [24]
Given Kudos: 348
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V28
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Products:
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
Posts: 322
Kudos: 2,320
 [24]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
21
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
TaN1213
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Last visit: 12 Mar 2019
Posts: 341
Own Kudos:
925
 [12]
Given Kudos: 644
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Organizational Behavior
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Posts: 341
Kudos: 925
 [12]
12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
Konstantin1983
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Last visit: 08 Dec 2021
Posts: 298
Own Kudos:
324
 [2]
Given Kudos: 353
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
WE:Sales (Telecommunications)
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
Posts: 298
Kudos: 324
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
ryanchow92
Joined: 15 Oct 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2018
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 3
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I don't understand why c... can anyone explain it?
avatar
Shobhit7
Joined: 01 Feb 2017
Last visit: 29 Apr 2021
Posts: 239
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 148
Posts: 239
Kudos: 432
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO, ANS B

Conclusion: chess-playing has likely contributed as one of the factor in school achievements, in areas requiring intelligence.

One of the weakener to the argument is to present a counter statement in which this performance increment could be attributed to factor other than leaning chess, such as a raised level of self confidence after completing the program.

Ans choice B works as such a weakener by stating that the group of students who could not complete the program lost self confidence and showed a drop in performance at school.

Posted from my mobile device
avatar
rinkumaa4
Joined: 15 Jul 2016
Last visit: 03 Feb 2022
Posts: 20
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 31
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 560 Q46 V21
GMAT 2: 620 Q48 V26
GPA: 4
WE:Operations (Manufacturing)
Products:
GMAT 2: 620 Q48 V26
Posts: 20
Kudos: 11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can some one explain, why C, not D is the official answer? May I miss something? Please clear my misconception... :oops: :oops: :oops:
User avatar
sumit411
Joined: 07 Oct 2017
Last visit: 28 Jan 2019
Posts: 210
Own Kudos:
234
 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 210
Kudos: 234
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Classic case of co-relation leading to causation--->
Chess-----> improved intelligence, achievement level

To undermine -
Prove the opposite or an alternate cause of the effect

C hits the bull eye.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
User avatar
Konstantin1983
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Last visit: 08 Dec 2021
Posts: 298
Own Kudos:
324
 [2]
Given Kudos: 353
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
WE:Sales (Telecommunications)
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
Posts: 298
Kudos: 324
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TaN1213
rinkumaa4
Can some one explain, why C, not D is the official answer? May I miss something? Please clear my misconception... :oops: :oops: :oops:

Conclusion says that the significant increase in achievement levels in all of their schoolwork is because of playing Chess that increased the students' reasoning power.
If there exists any other reason that warrants the increase in achievement levels , the conclusion is weakened.

C : Many of the children who completed the program subsequently sought membership on a school chess team that required a high-grade average for membership.

C says that many such students wanted a membership and to get that membership they are required to get higher grades, an alternative reason that explains the increase in achievement levels. So, in such a case, it is not the reasoning power due to playing chess , but personal motive of seeking membership that resulted in higher achievement levels.

I still disagree. C may be interpreted as high-grade average would be a result of playinf chess. That is why i think this is bad question. Option C would be better if it would be "many of the children who completed the program had peronal motives because they wanted to seek membership on a school chess team"
User avatar
GMAT215
Joined: 01 Feb 2018
Last visit: 20 Jul 2022
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 157
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
GPA: 4
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Posts: 53
Kudos: 21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
spent a lot of time reading e.planation still couldnt find out appropriate reasoning for the OA .
User avatar
VeritasPrepBrian
User avatar
Veritas Prep Representative
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Last visit: 02 Mar 2022
Posts: 416
Own Kudos:
3,270
 [2]
Given Kudos: 63
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 416
Kudos: 3,270
 [2]
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hey guys - sumit411 nailed it on this one...it's a total correlation-vs.-causation flaw here and if you train yourself to see that as a flaw these types of problems get much more manageable.

There's also some precision-in-language in play here that I think can address Konstantin's point.

Look at the conclusion: it is likely that the reasoning power and spatial intuition exercised in chess-playing also contribute to achievement in many other areas of intellectual activity.

That's a really specific cause that the argument is inferring from the points that "kids joined an after school chess program, and afterward their school achievement improved." Note how really, really specific that is - even if you credit "chess" in general, this conclusion rules out "because they now had friends they liked going to school more" and "chess club helped them form positive relationships with teachers in the school," and all kinds of other ways that "chess" in general could have led to that improvement. To me that's a huge key here - it's an eerily specific conclusion that suggests a very particular cause/effect relationship, and you know that CR problems are often built with a correlation/causation flaw.

Note that C just suggests a different way that "chess" could have led to that improvement - it wasn't the spatial thinking and reasoning power, it was that in order to keep participating in this activity they liked, the kids had to get their grades up. An alternate cause is the best answer to a Weaken question that has a correlation/causation flaw.
avatar
Dino732
Joined: 10 Nov 2018
Last visit: 06 May 2021
Posts: 30
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 19
Location: France
GMAT 1: 600 Q48 V25
GMAT 2: 680 Q49 V34
GRE 1: Q163 V161
GPA: 3.6
GMAT 2: 680 Q49 V34
GRE 1: Q163 V161
Posts: 30
Kudos: 12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rinkumaa4
Can some one explain, why C, not D is the official answer? May I miss something? Please clear my misconception... :oops: :oops: :oops:

In my opinion, it is Cause-Cnosequence. The question says that Chess playing caused Higher performance and hence higher grades. Option C reverses them and says that students worked to get Higher Grades to register for Chess. By reversing the causal relationship, the original argument is weakened. Even I got the answer wrong.
User avatar
sssanskaar
Joined: 09 Aug 2020
Last visit: 09 Oct 2022
Posts: 209
Own Kudos:
133
 [1]
Given Kudos: 163
Location: India
Schools: IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39 (Online)
Schools: IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V39 (Online)
Posts: 209
Kudos: 133
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasPrepBrian
Hey guys - sumit411 nailed it on this one...it's a total correlation-vs.-causation flaw here and if you train yourself to see that as a flaw these types of problems get much more manageable.

There's also some precision-in-language in play here that I think can address Konstantin's point.

Look at the conclusion: it is likely that the reasoning power and spatial intuition exercised in chess-playing also contribute to achievement in many other areas of intellectual activity.

That's a really specific cause that the argument is inferring from the points that "kids joined an after school chess program, and afterward their school achievement improved." Note how really, really specific that is - even if you credit "chess" in general, this conclusion rules out "because they now had friends they liked going to school more" and "chess club helped them form positive relationships with teachers in the school," and all kinds of other ways that "chess" in general could have led to that improvement. To me that's a huge key here - it's an eerily specific conclusion that suggests a very particular cause/effect relationship, and you know that CR problems are often built with a correlation/causation flaw.

Note that C just suggests a different way that "chess" could have led to that improvement - it wasn't the spatial thinking and reasoning power, it was that in order to keep participating in this activity they liked, the kids had to get their grades up. An alternate cause is the best answer to a Weaken question that has a correlation/causation flaw.

Hey VeritasPrepBrian,

You are correct in saying that we have to look for an alternate cause in such correlations. But can you please explain why B can not be a weakener?

This is how I understood B - some students who didn't complete the chess course already had lower performance/achievement levels than the students who completed it.

Isn't this attacking the conclusion, which states that the chess course helped the students to perform well? I chose B because of this reason. :? Kindly help.
User avatar
CEdward
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2022
Posts: 1,161
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 332
Posts: 1,161
Kudos: 289
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sssanskaar
VeritasPrepBrian
Hey guys - sumit411 nailed it on this one...it's a total correlation-vs.-causation flaw here and if you train yourself to see that as a flaw these types of problems get much more manageable.

There's also some precision-in-language in play here that I think can address Konstantin's point.

Look at the conclusion: it is likely that the reasoning power and spatial intuition exercised in chess-playing also contribute to achievement in many other areas of intellectual activity.

That's a really specific cause that the argument is inferring from the points that "kids joined an after school chess program, and afterward their school achievement improved." Note how really, really specific that is - even if you credit "chess" in general, this conclusion rules out "because they now had friends they liked going to school more" and "chess club helped them form positive relationships with teachers in the school," and all kinds of other ways that "chess" in general could have led to that improvement. To me that's a huge key here - it's an eerily specific conclusion that suggests a very particular cause/effect relationship, and you know that CR problems are often built with a correlation/causation flaw.

Note that C just suggests a different way that "chess" could have led to that improvement - it wasn't the spatial thinking and reasoning power, it was that in order to keep participating in this activity they liked, the kids had to get their grades up. An alternate cause is the best answer to a Weaken question that has a correlation/causation flaw.

Hey VeritasPrepBrian,

You are correct in saying that we have to look for an alternate cause in such correlations. But can you please explain why B can not be a weakener?

This is how I understood B - some students who didn't complete the chess course already had lower performance/achievement levels than the students who completed it.

Isn't this attacking the conclusion, which states that the chess course helped the students to perform well? I chose B because of this reason. :? Kindly help.

I said B was the answer...and my thought is those children who succeeded in the program were perhaps already pre-dispositioned to do well...nullifying the cause.

C I thought actually strengthened. :?
avatar
Alpha420
Joined: 16 Jul 2020
Last visit: 16 Nov 2022
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 248
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V35
Posts: 24
Kudos: 5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasPrepBrian
Hey guys - sumit411 nailed it on this one...it's a total correlation-vs.-causation flaw here and if you train yourself to see that as a flaw these types of problems get much more manageable.

There's also some precision-in-language in play here that I think can address Konstantin's point.

Look at the conclusion: it is likely that the reasoning power and spatial intuition exercised in chess-playing also contribute to achievement in many other areas of intellectual activity.

That's a really specific cause that the argument is inferring from the points that "kids joined an after school chess program, and afterward their school achievement improved." Note how really, really specific that is - even if you credit "chess" in general, this conclusion rules out "because they now had friends they liked going to school more" and "chess club helped them form positive relationships with teachers in the school," and all kinds of other ways that "chess" in general could have led to that improvement. To me that's a huge key here - it's an eerily specific conclusion that suggests a very particular cause/effect relationship, and you know that CR problems are often built with a correlation/causation flaw.

Note that C just suggests a different way that "chess" could have led to that improvement - it wasn't the spatial thinking and reasoning power, it was that in order to keep participating in this activity they liked, the kids had to get their grades up. An alternate cause is the best answer to a Weaken question that has a correlation/causation flaw.

Apart from causation-effect reasoning that helps to correctly answer weakening questions,for the given question, it is talking specifically about students who enrolled in program and also completed it.

Only option C talks about such student and also provides an alternative cause for their higher level of achievement.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
Basshead
Joined: 09 Jan 2020
Last visit: 07 Feb 2024
Posts: 906
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 431
Location: United States
Posts: 906
Kudos: 323
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The argument concludes that it is likely that the reasoning power and spatial intuition exercised in chess-playing also contribute to achievement in many other areas of intellectual activity.

B states that those children who began the program but who did not successfully complete it had lower preprogram levels of achievement than did those who eventually did successfully complete the program. Even if this is the case, the conclusion still stands -- that the reasoning power and spatial intuition exercised in chess-playing also contribute to achievement in many other areas of intellectual activity. Choice B doesn't give us a reason to doubt the conclusion. Children who completed the program may have higher preprogram levels of achievement, but it's still possible that the skills exercised in chess-playing contributes to many other areas of intellectual ability.

C, on the other hand, suggests that children showed significant increase in achievement levels in all of their schoolwork in order to join a school chess team.

C is the answer.
avatar
Hoba
Joined: 15 Sep 2021
Last visit: 28 May 2025
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 122
Location: Greece
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Konstantin1983
TaN1213
rinkumaa4
Can some one explain, why C, not D is the official answer? May I miss something? Please clear my misconception... :oops: :oops: :oops:

Conclusion says that the significant increase in achievement levels in all of their schoolwork is because of playing Chess that increased the students' reasoning power.
If there exists any other reason that warrants the increase in achievement levels , the conclusion is weakened.

C : Many of the children who completed the program subsequently sought membership on a school chess team that required a high-grade average for membership.

C says that many such students wanted a membership and to get that membership they are required to get higher grades, an alternative reason that explains the increase in achievement levels. So, in such a case, it is not the reasoning power due to playing chess , but personal motive of seeking membership that resulted in higher achievement levels.

I still disagree. C may be interpreted as high-grade average would be a result of playinf chess. That is why i think this is bad question. Option C would be better if it would be "many of the children who completed the program had peronal motives because they wanted to seek membership on a school chess team"

I agree with you, this question is poorly written. I rarely blame the questions, but "seeking membership at a team afterwards that required a high-grade average " could just be the result of already achieved higher grades allowing them entrance to an exclusive club. Speculating that it gave them motivation is a big IF in my eyes.
User avatar
JoeKan1234
Joined: 27 Aug 2022
Last visit: 23 Dec 2024
Posts: 63
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 147
Posts: 63
Kudos: 45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
This problem tests the concept of "causation vs. correlation". The passage suggests that completion of the program will improve schoolwork and other intellectual activities. This is a causal relationship. To weaken this logic, one must show that the logic is linked not by causation, but by correlation. C says those who have high grades are eligible to become members of the chess team. In other words, it is possible that those who completed the program are originally smart, so they perform well in schoolwork and other intellectual activities. Therefore, C makes the conclusion questionable although it does not disprove it.
User avatar
Pranavsawant
Joined: 20 Jun 2025
Last visit: 07 Apr 2026
Posts: 89
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 326
Location: India
Schools: ISB (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 725 Q90 V87 DI81
GPA: 3.99
Schools: ISB (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 725 Q90 V87 DI81
Posts: 89
Kudos: 8
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Brilliant question and an even better explanation :)
VeritasPrepBrian
Hey guys - sumit411 nailed it on this one...it's a total correlation-vs.-causation flaw here and if you train yourself to see that as a flaw these types of problems get much more manageable.

There's also some precision-in-language in play here that I think can address Konstantin's point.

Look at the conclusion: it is likely that the reasoning power and spatial intuition exercised in chess-playing also contribute to achievement in many other areas of intellectual activity.

That's a really specific cause that the argument is inferring from the points that "kids joined an after school chess program, and afterward their school achievement improved." Note how really, really specific that is - even if you credit "chess" in general, this conclusion rules out "because they now had friends they liked going to school more" and "chess club helped them form positive relationships with teachers in the school," and all kinds of other ways that "chess" in general could have led to that improvement. To me that's a huge key here - it's an eerily specific conclusion that suggests a very particular cause/effect relationship, and you know that CR problems are often built with a correlation/causation flaw.

Note that C just suggests a different way that "chess" could have led to that improvement - it wasn't the spatial thinking and reasoning power, it was that in order to keep participating in this activity they liked, the kids had to get their grades up. An alternate cause is the best answer to a Weaken question that has a correlation/causation flaw.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
506 posts
361 posts