Last visit was: 01 May 2026, 21:15

It is currently 01 May 2026, 21:15

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Back to Forum

Create Topic

Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who listen to music on headpho

1 2

ntnsngh83

Joined: 13 Jan 2022

Last visit: 29 Dec 2023

Posts: 9

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 444

Location: India

Concentration: Strategy, Operations

Schools: IIMA '25 IIM IIM

GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V34 Verified score

GPA: 3

WE:Operations (Energy)

Schools: IIMA '25 IIM IIM

GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V34 Verified score

Posts: 9

Kudos: 7

22 Oct 2022, 06:56

Kudos

Bookmarks

The legislation is to reduce prevalence of hearing loss............this will fail if the headphones are not the main factor of hearing loss.
Moreover, it is not mentioned that these adolescents use the headphones purchased by their parents. It could be from any money.

Therefore, c.

achloes

Joined: 16 Oct 2020

Last visit: 19 May 2025

Posts: 244

Own Kudos:

221

Given Kudos: 2,382

GMAT 1: 460 Q28 V26 Verified score

GMAT 2: 550 Q39 V27 Verified score

GMAT 3: 610 Q39 V35 Verified score

GMAT 4: 650 Q42 V38 Verified score

GMAT 5: 720 Q48 V41 Verified score

Posts: 244

Kudos: 221

09 Feb 2023, 03:48

Kudos

Bookmarks

KarishmaB

quantumliner

Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who listen to music on headphones on a regular basis are three times as likely to develop serious hearing loss as are adolescents who do not use headphones. Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors would help to reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents.

In assessing the doctor’s assertion, it would be most useful to know which of the following?

a. percentage of federal legislators who would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors.

b. The number of adolescents who use headphones on a regular basis but do not suffer from hearing loss.

c. The extent to which other common adolescent behaviors contribute to hearing loss.

d. The percentage of parents who would refuse to purchase headphones for their adolescent children.

e. The difference in level of hearing loss between adults who have used headphones since adolescence and those who began using headphones as adults.

Responding to a pm:

Adolescents who use headphones regularly are 3 times as likely to develop hearing loss as those who do not.

Conclusion:Federal legislation prohibiting the sale of headphones to minors would help to reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents.

Note what the assertion is: A law prohibiting the sale to minors will reduce the prevalence of hearing loss. It says a law will help. We need to evaluate whether this law will help. Be careful - we DO NOT need to evaluate whether such a law can be passed or not. We need to figure out that if there is such a law, will it help. It is similar to a case of conditional conclusion which I have discussed here: https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas- ... onclusion/

a. percentage of federal legislators who would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors.
This is trying to evaluate whether such a law can be passed. The point is we don't have to evaluate that. We have to evaluate whether such a law can reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents. This is not the answer.

b. The number of adolescents who use headphones on a regular basis but do not suffer from hearing loss.
We are looking for a reduction in the number, whatever the current percentage may be. This is irrelevant.

c. The extent to which other common adolescent behaviors contribute to hearing loss.
Irrelevant. We want to reduce the number of hearing losses due to headphones. Other causes are irrelevant.

d. The percentage of parents who would refuse to purchase headphones for their adolescent children.
This will help us evaluate whether refusing sale to adolescents will actually curtail access to them. It will certainly help in evaluating whether our law will help the desired impact.

e. The difference in level of hearing loss between adults who have used headphones since adolescence and those who began using headphones as adults.
Irrelevant.

Answer (D)

KarishmaB I can see why D is correct but could you help me understand why C is irrelevant / incorrect?

Here's my reasoning:

If say 100% of common adolescent behaviors contribute to hearing loss, then despite federal legislation, the prevalence of hearing loss in adolescents cannot be reduced. This is because even if sale of headphones to minors are banned, this group will invariably be affected by their other behaviors.

On the other hand, if say less than 100% of behaviors contribute to hearing loss, then the federal legislation can make a difference, however small or big.

Clearly, this option passes the variance test and therefore can be used to evaluate the argument.

Goncalo13072001

Joined: 12 Feb 2023

Last visit: 14 Mar 2023

Posts: 5

Given Kudos: 1

Posts: 5

Kudos: 0

13 Feb 2023, 11:32

Kudos

Bookmarks

I disagree with the correct answer in the sense that, if it is forbidden by law then they cannot buy, I would agree if it was written that they would refuse to buy even before the law being enacted.

Whereas knowing the other factors would really help us, because we would know that if other aspects are causing them to be deaf, headphones are not causing such magnitude

anuragskashyap

Joined: 26 Oct 2023

Last visit: 26 Apr 2026

Posts: 3

Products:

Posts: 3

Kudos: 0

23 Jul 2025, 07:48

Kudos

Bookmarks

I have doubts on this.
How do we assume the causality here. Having hearing problem and high headphone usage might be co-exist together and some other factor cauing the problem.
I have chosen C , because if other factors are more resposible for Hearing problem then passing legislation does not impact and opposite will increase the belief in conclusion (if other fcators are not that much responsible for hearing problem),

quiaitaque

Joined: 03 Sep 2025

Last visit: 31 Mar 2026

Posts: 29

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 22

Posts: 29

Kudos: 5

23 Sep 2025, 03:12

Kudos

Bookmarks

KarishmaB

Correct me if I'm wrong. In this case we have to evaluvate the conclusion that the federal law that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors would help reduce the heaing loss amongst adolescents.

I selected E as My answer. THis is wrong I realised as it compares the hearing loss between adults and adolescents.

A - Irrelevant (Talks about Voters on Legislation)
B - Irrelevant (We need to evaluvat the law reduces hearing loss or not, this statemnt is on poepel who dont suffer from hearing loss)
C - Talks about Other Behaviour

Although the answer is D I'm not sure how the statmetne evalvuates the conclusion. In this case we have to use "children" as a synonym for "mionrs" yes. IF not we cant draw a correlation between the effect of the laws impact on slaes of headphoen to minors / children, which will evnetaully impact their hearing standard once they become adolescents.

KarishmaB

egmat

e-GMAT Representative

Joined: 02 Nov 2011

Last visit: 27 Apr 2026

Posts: 5,632

Own Kudos:

33,441

[1]

Given Kudos: 707

GMAT Date: 08-19-2020

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 5,632

Kudos: 33,441

[1]

23 Sep 2025, 05:34

Kudos

Bookmarks

quiaitaque

quiaitaque I'll take a shot at addressing your doubt- I hope it helps! You've done excellent work eliminating wrong answers and identifying the conclusion correctly.

You're absolutely right to focus on evaluating whether "federal law that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors would help reduce hearing loss among adolescents." You've also correctly eliminated A, B, and C with solid reasoning.

Let me clarify the age group terminology that's causing confusion:

Children (in answer D): In this context, refers to the offspring of parents, regardless of specific age

So when answer D mentions "adolescent children," it means teenagers who are someone's kids. All adolescents are minors, so a law banning sales to minors would include adolescents.

Process Diagnosis - Why D Evaluates the Conclusion

The doctor's plan has a critical assumption: If we ban sales to minors, adolescents won't get headphones.

But there's a loophole! Even if stores can't sell headphones to minors directly, adolescents could still obtain them through:

- Parents buying them as gifts
- Online purchases (harder to verify age)
- Hand-me-downs from older siblings

Answer D directly tests this loophole. If 90% of parents would refuse to buy headphones for their adolescent children, the law would likely be effective. But if only 10% would refuse, the law would fail because adolescents would just get headphones through their parents.

Here is a Decision Framework for Evaluate Questions-

Identify the plan/conclusion and its goal
Find the assumption (What must be true for the plan to work?)
Look for an answer that tests whether that assumption holds

In this case:
- Plan: Ban sales to minors
- Goal: Reduce adolescent hearing loss
- Assumption: This ban will actually prevent adolescents from getting headphones
- Test (Answer D): Will parents circumvent the ban?

Common Variations

You'll see this same "implementation gap" logic in:
- Strengthen/Weaken questions about regulations
- Evaluate questions about policy proposals
- Assumption questions involving indirect effects

I hope this helps you!

1 2

Moderators:

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

7391 posts

AbhishekP220108

513 posts

bhanu29

363 posts