CR Parents

Question

Please answer this one.

crackgmat3 · Answer

B.

By process of elimination. I don't find any answer closer to weakening the argument.

hardworker_indian · Answer

E.

Premise: Divorce increased since 1940
Conclusion: Number of single-natural-parent kids should have increased.

To weaken teh conclusion, we should either prove that the negative (prove that the kids stay with both parents after divorce) or prove the alternative cause (prove that the alternative cause for single-natural-parent kids have decreased, thereby nuetralising the effect).

E does the second one. If E is true, no. of single-natural-parent kids are not necessarilly greater than 1940

Alex_NL · Answer

I will choose E too.


E weakens the inference because more families will remain together due to medical treatments.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards,

Alex

amitbalan · Answer

I agree with Hardworker Indian. E

anandnk · Answer

I believe it is (A)

D/M has increased. If we can show that M has decreased then we can say that D/M has increased but children have not

venksune · Answer

E for me. 

E says D/M has relationship to Cd/(Cm+Cs) (where Cd=Children raised by one of the Divorced parents, Cm=Children raised by Married parents both of whom are alive and Cs is Children raised by single parent(wherein one parent is dead)). If Cs is decreased the ratio D/M will increase.

dushver · Answer

It is E for me also.
I agree with Hardworker's logic.

Will like to add that the conclusion attributes only divorce as the cause for the increase for a single parent.
E offers another cause and thus weakens the conclusion.

myfrankenstein · Answer

D for me. i think E actually strengthens the case.

CR Parents

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards