Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who play video games on a regu

Still another doubt with D , please explain this..

Lets Negate D

Most parents would NOT refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.

What if I go with this thinking ....

Even if parents would NOT refuse to purchase video games and infact buy the video games for their child , Still there are chances that adolescent themself or their siblings might stop the adolescent to play video game hearing the ban.

Now though D is negated still conclusion does not breaks apart. ie Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games is still helping minors to curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents.

The doctor feels that if adolescents do not have video games to play, it will help curb the condition. But the law only bans minors from buying it. The law will have effect only if minors do not get their hands on the video games if they are not allowed to buy them. If adults buy the games for them instead, then the law is useless. It doesn't make sense for adults to buy the games for them and then not allow them to play. Also, why would the adults buy the games for them if adolescents themselves do not want to play. I will not say that this can never happen, but it sure would be rare. Only if adolescents want the games and adults will allow them to play will the adults buy the games. Hence, if you negate (D), the conclusion does fall apart.

I have seen similar GMAT questions like this one many times; it looks like the GMAT wants us to distinguish between what the law says and what people actually do. as in this example, the law is prohibiting certain action, but the conclusion went as far as to conclude that the regulations will prevent the happening of the action. well, if the laws by themselves were capable of stopping people from doing bad things, we wouldn't need courts or jails...

"Curb" means restrain or control, not "eradicate". Your point could be valid if the wording were as follows:

Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb eradicate this painful wrist condition among adolescents.

Even if there were other reasons for the syndrome, restricting video games would still curb or restrain the syndrome (among those who play videos games).

Adolescents play video games regularly and thus are likely to develop some syndrome.
By prohibiting the sale to the MINORS would help curb this issue.

The assumption here is that these minors would not come in contact with the video games by any means. What if someone else buys for them or gift them? Then the argument fails.
Therefore correct choice would be one that states that there is no other way for these minors to come in contact with video games.
Choice D is correct as it states MOST (majority) of parents won’t buy video games for their adolescent children.

Here is my take.

• The majority of federal legislators would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of video games to minors.
- The conclusion is a CAUSE AND EFFECT conclusion which states that IF game sales to minors are banned, kids are less likely to develop the carpel tunnel. A is one of the generic tricks on these type of cause-and-effect conclusion question. A tries to mislead you by making you think the IF condition is likely to happen. However, even if the law isn't passed, the conclusion that - if it were implemented, it would work - is still valid.

• Not all adolescents who play video games on a regular basis suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.
We don't need all regular kids gamers to develop carpal tunnel to establish the argument that gaming could lead to a degree of carpel tunnel and that if such gaming is limited, less carpel tunnel could result.

• Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.
Not necessary. Kids could develop carpal tunnel from eating ice-cream or staring at the sun for all we care. It still doesn't affect the argument that since kids develop carpal tunnel from games, by preventing gaming, carpal tunnel could be limited from this specific activity. So even if kids could develop carpal tunnel from 1 million activities, by limiting one of such activities, you could still reduce carpal tunnel by a bit...

• Most parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children. (Correct)
If kids aren't allowed to buy video games, but their parents could buy it for them, then the end result is the same ... kids are still time playing games as before... and the intended effect of passing the law - limiting kids from playing games - is negated as parents are helping their kids to by-pass the ban.

• The regular playing of video games by adolescents does not produce such beneficial effects as better hand-eye
coordination and improved reaction time.
The kids could develop carpal tunnel and at the same time, all become Einsteiens for all we care. It still doesn't affect the argument that since games lead to carpal tunnel, limiting gaming could reduce carpal tunnel. We don't care about other effects of gaming...

Hope that helps

Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who play video games on a regular basis are three times as likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome as are adolescents who do not play video games. Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents.

The doctor’s conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?


(A) The majority of federal legislators would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of video games to minors.

(B) Not all adolescents who play video games on a regular basis suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.

(C) Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.

(D) Most parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.

(E) The regular playing of video games by adolescents does not produce such beneficial effects as better hand-eye coordination and improved reaction time.

The law would prohibit sale of video games to minors. But parents can buy it for their kids.
Hence D

Posted from my mobile device

i am not able to eliminate option A,

Here is my reasoning - If the bill that is related to prohibiton of sales of video games will not pass, then whole conclusion of the doctor will be wrong , correct me if i am wrong