It is currently 19 Nov 2017, 13:31

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# CR Parents

Author Message
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 595

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2004, 07:08
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Attachments

CR11.jpg [ 45.05 KiB | Viewed 1087 times ]

Kudos [?]: 281 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 124

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Location: US

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2004, 07:58
B.

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

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Posts: 590

Kudos [?]: 162 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2004, 09:22
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

Kudos [?]: 162 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 02 Apr 2004
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Location: Utrecht

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2004, 11:39
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

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 94

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Location: Santa Clara

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2004, 13:07
I agree with Hardworker Indian. E
_________________

"Do or do not, there is no try."
-Yoda

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1788

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 0

Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2004, 18:56
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

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 891

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2004, 01:20
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.

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 320

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

Location: India

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2004, 03:51
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.

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 26 Sep 2004
Posts: 136

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2004, 06:11
D for me. i think E actually strengthens the case.
_________________

Franky
http://franky4gmat.blogspot.com

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

03 Oct 2004, 06:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# CR Parents

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.