It is currently 19 Nov 2017, 13:31

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

CR Parents

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 595

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

CR Parents [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Sep 2004, 07:08
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

HideShow timer Statistics

Please answer this one.
Attachments

CR11.jpg
CR11.jpg [ 45.05 KiB | Viewed 1087 times ]

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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 124

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

Location: US
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Director
avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Posts: 590

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

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Apr 2004
Posts: 222

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

Location: Utrecht
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2004
Posts: 94

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

Location: Santa Clara
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1788

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

Location: NewJersey USA
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Director
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 891

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

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 320

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

Location: India
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Sep 2004
Posts: 136

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

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

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

Franky
http://franky4gmat.blogspot.com

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

  [#permalink] 03 Oct 2004, 06:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by

CR Parents

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.