Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
24 Sep 2021, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
69% (01:50) correct
31%
(01:59)
wrong
based on 157
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Columnist: Neuroscientists have found that states of profound creativity are accompanied by an increase of theta brain waves, which occur in many regions of the brain, including the hippocampus. They also found that listening to music increases theta waves dramatically. Thus, one can attain a state of profound creativity merely by listening to a tape of recorded music.
The columnist’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) takes for granted that there is a causal connection between the hippocampus and being in a state of profound creativity
(B) fails to consider that music is not necessary for one to be in a state of profound creativity
(C) does not rule out the possibility that listening to music by means other than a tape recording also increases theta waves
(D) ignores the possibility that an increase in theta waves may not always be accompanied by a state of profound creativity
(E) provides insufficient reasons to believe that people who are not in states of profound creativity have low levels of theta brain waves
The columnist’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) takes for granted that there is a causal connection between the hippocampus and being in a state of profound creativity
(B) fails to consider that music is not necessary for one to be in a state of profound creativity
(C) does not rule out the possibility that listening to music by means other than a tape recording also increases theta waves
(D) ignores the possibility that an increase in theta waves may not always be accompanied by a state of profound creativity
(E) provides insufficient reasons to believe that people who are not in states of profound creativity have low levels of theta brain waves
25 Sep 2021, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
No, this is stupid. The logic here is just like saying, “Scientists have discovered that law professors talk a lot. They have also found that drinking an entire bottle of Jack Daniels causes people to talk a lot. Therefore one can become a law professor by drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels.”
The problem here is 1) correlation doesn’t equal causation and 2) the argument is confusing cause with effect. Just because creativity is correlated with theta brain waves doesn’t mean that one causes the other. And furthermore, it certainly doesn’t mean that theta brain waves cause creativity. It could be that creativity causes theta brain waves.
We’re asked to find grounds for finding the columnist’s reasoning vulnerable. I think we’ve already done that.
A) If this said “theta brain waves” instead of “hippocampus” I’d like it. As is, it feels like a trap, since the hippocampus is only one region where theta brain waves occur. This just doesn’t seem to be an accurate description of what the argument was actually saying.
B) No, the argument says that music is sufficient for creativity, not that it’s necessary.
C) What? This is beside the point. It’s possible that the columnist would say that listening to live music also causes creativity, and that wouldn’t ruin the columnist’s argument. No way.
D) Right. This is a better version of A. The columnist has assumed that theta brain waves cause creativity. If D is true, then the columnist is shown to be a moron.
E) The argument doesn’t even mention people who are not in states of creativity, or who have low levels of brain waves. This is just plain irrelevant.
Our answer is D.
General Discussion
24 Sep 2021, 02:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premise - The states of profound creativity is accompanied by an increase of theta brain waves. Listening to music increases theta waves.
Conclusion - one can attain a state of profound creativity merely by listening to a tape of recorded music.
In the above argument, the two things "states of profound creativity" and "an increase of theta brain waves" are assumed to be correlated (not necessarily causal).
The term accompanied implies that the two are simultaneously existing.
if "an increase of theta brain waves" is achieved by listening to music - it is expected that states of profound creativity will also be achieved.
Now, look at the choices with an eye to undermine this conclusion -
(A) takes for granted that there is a causal connection between the hippocampus and being in a state of profound creativity
"hippocampus" is a region in the brain. There is no point of considering this connection at all.
Note: If the choice would have been :
takes for granted that there is a connection an increase of theta brain waves and being in a state of profound creativity
I would have picked up the choice.
(B) fails to consider that music is not necessary for one to be in a state of profound creativity
X considers Y= ~ X fails consider NOT-Y
This choice just says what's there in the argument. Does not undermine the conclusion.
(C) does not rule out the possibility that listening to music by means other than a tape recording also increases theta waves
Other sources of music may do similar to what tape does, but that is not the scope of the argument.
(D) ignores the possibility that an increase in theta waves may not always be accompanied by a state of profound creativity
The Columnist established the relation between the two things and concluded that if music causes one to happen, another will also happen.
However, the columnist did not ever question the relation between the two things.
This relation was not established by any study (or a fact), but was established by him only. Hence this relation itself may be questionable , weakening the argument entirely.
(E) provides insufficient reasons to believe that people who are not in states of profound creativity have low levels of theta brain waves
The argument talks about "an increase" of the waves. The increase can happen for either low or high (existing) level.
Thus, this consideration is not needed for the argument.
Takeaway : It's important to note that who(author/study/or the conclusion-maker) establishes the relationship(correlation/causal) in the argument and can it be attacked (if established by conclusion-maker).
IMO D.
Conclusion - one can attain a state of profound creativity merely by listening to a tape of recorded music.
In the above argument, the two things "states of profound creativity" and "an increase of theta brain waves" are assumed to be correlated (not necessarily causal).
The term accompanied implies that the two are simultaneously existing.
if "an increase of theta brain waves" is achieved by listening to music - it is expected that states of profound creativity will also be achieved.
Now, look at the choices with an eye to undermine this conclusion -
(A) takes for granted that there is a causal connection between the hippocampus and being in a state of profound creativity
"hippocampus" is a region in the brain. There is no point of considering this connection at all.
Note: If the choice would have been :
takes for granted that there is a connection an increase of theta brain waves and being in a state of profound creativity
I would have picked up the choice.
(B) fails to consider that music is not necessary for one to be in a state of profound creativity
X considers Y= ~ X fails consider NOT-Y
This choice just says what's there in the argument. Does not undermine the conclusion.
(C) does not rule out the possibility that listening to music by means other than a tape recording also increases theta waves
Other sources of music may do similar to what tape does, but that is not the scope of the argument.
(D) ignores the possibility that an increase in theta waves may not always be accompanied by a state of profound creativity
The Columnist established the relation between the two things and concluded that if music causes one to happen, another will also happen.
However, the columnist did not ever question the relation between the two things.
This relation was not established by any study (or a fact), but was established by him only. Hence this relation itself may be questionable , weakening the argument entirely.
(E) provides insufficient reasons to believe that people who are not in states of profound creativity have low levels of theta brain waves
The argument talks about "an increase" of the waves. The increase can happen for either low or high (existing) level.
Thus, this consideration is not needed for the argument.
Takeaway : It's important to note that who(author/study/or the conclusion-maker) establishes the relationship(correlation/causal) in the argument and can it be attacked (if established by conclusion-maker).
IMO D.
