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

Question

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.

VeritasPrepBrian · Accepted Answer

Great question - thanks for posting this one (and for the invitation to chime in!).

This is a terrific example of two crucial strategies for Assumption questions:

1) You have to identify the exact conclusion of any CR strengthen/weaken/assumption question

2) The assumption is something that is  necessary  to the argument; not merely something that would strengthen it

Here, the conclusion is that "prohibiting the sale of video games to minors would  help curb  carpal tunnel syndrome among adolescents. That's entirely different than something that would eliminate it.

The problem with choice C as it pertains to this conclusion is that the conclusion doesn't require video games to be the only or even a primary reason that kids develop this problem. Even if only 5% of carpal tunnel cases were related to video games, eliminating video games would still "help curb" the problem, however slightly. We don't need for video games to be the only reason that kids get this problem...we just need it to be one reason.

Now, with D, we need that to be the case - prohibiting "the sale of games to minors" doesn't necessarily mean that minors won't still play the games. In order to curb the problem we need to stop kids from playing the games, not simply from buying the games. If D were untrue - if it were the opposite - then we could say that parents will just buy these games for their kids anyway, so the kids won't stop playing the games. Therefore, we need D to be true - it's required by the argument otherwise the conclusion (that this law will help reduce the problem) isn't supported at all.

GMATPill · Answer

D

I originally thought (C), but it looks like I fell for a typical pitfall and the answer should be (D). It's a bit tricky.

Once you see the word "assumptions" in the question, you should look back at the paragraph to see what claim is being made.

Here's the claim: 
"Stopping sales of video games --> less carpel tunnel syndrome"

Well, wait a minute. Look at the long chain of reasoning here:

There are 3 components: 
 1) Sales of video games -> 2) playing video games -> 3) carpel tunnel syndrome

More detailed, it looks like this: 
 1) Legislation that stops sales of video games --(causes)--> 2) playing video games --(causes)--> 3) carpel tunnel syndrome

Here's the doctor's claim : "Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents. "

According to the reasoning chain above, getting rid of item #1: "sales of video games" through legislation will mean #2 and #3 will not exist.

Well, that assumes that #1: "sales of video games" will lead to #2: "playing video games" 
How do we know that blocking sales of video games will necessarily lead to less playing of video games?

Well, the doctor assumes that by making it illegal for minors to purchase to purchase the games, the  minors would have no other way to play the games.  Well, common sense tells you that the minors can always get their parents/guardians to get the games for them. So the author assumes that this is not possible since they assume "most parents would refuse to purchase the games for their kids."

With answer choice (D), that's what you get:

"Most parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children."

I still think answer (C) is an assumption in the  3 part assumption chain  I mentioned above although it's not an assumption of the doctor's claim---small subtlety.

Here's why:

In the 3 part reasoning chain: 
 1) Sales of video games -> 2) playing video games -> 3) carpel tunnel syndrome

the doctor's claim is that getting rid of #1, you will no longer have #3. 
Answer (D) describes the assumption between #1 and #2.
Answer (C) describes the assumption between #2 and #3.

Since the doctor's claim begins further to the left on the reasoning chain (#1), the assumption must include #1. Although (C) seems like a legitimate assumption to me, it is an assumption related to a different part of the reasoning chain (#2 and #3).

So it appears because of where we are on this reasoning chain, the answer is not (C) but rather (D).

Open to your thoughts.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The doctor concludes that federal legislation prohibiting the sale of video games to minors would help reduce the incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome. This conclusion hinges on the assumption that the only way for adolescents to access video games is to purchase the games themeselves.

(A) Majority consensus in the legislature has no bearing on whether the recommended legislation would actually help to curb carpal tunnel syndrome.

(B) This argument states that "adolescents who play video games on a regular basis are three times as likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome." Thus, the argument directly indicates that carpal tunnel syndrome does not affect all adolescents who play video games. Rather than an assumption, this answer choice is simply an inference drawn from the text.

(C) The fact that adolescents can develop carpal tunnel syndrome by means other than playing video games has no bearing on whether the recommended legislation would help to curb carpal tunnel syndrome.

(D) CORRECT.  In order for the doctor's recommended legislation to reduce the incidence of carpal tunnel syndrome among adolescents, the prohibition from the purchase of video games must result in the actual possession of fewer video games. Thus, it must be assumed that parents will not simply purchase video games for their children.

(E) The fact that video games can benefit adolescents in other ways has no bearing on whether the recommended legislation would help to curb carpal tunnel syndrome.

hibloom · Answer

Even I am confused it looks to be a clear C
The question of parents following legistation does not arise a legislation should be followed
I think we need more discussion on this one

goalsnr · Answer

C is irrelevant because the conclusion is focussed on how the legislation can curb the condition

COnsider this :
What is the Conclusion of the argument?

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

What is the evidence provided?
Research shows that adolescents who play video games on a regular basis are three times as likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome

Paraphrase: Doctors know video games are the reason for Carpal tunnel syndrome in adolescents .If legistation is passed such that videos cannot be sold to minors the painful wrist condition can be curbed.

What is the gap between the conclusion and evidence?
How adolescent get access to video games?The argument is assuming kids buy video games. They cannot receive videos games from parents, teachers...blah blah

Hope this helps.

durgesh79 · Answer

one of th ebest ways to solve "assumption" problem is to negate the assumption and the conclusion should fall apart..

if we negate C, what do we have

Playing video games is  NOT  the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.

now it tells us that there could be other factors for CTS (carpal tunnel syndrome) ... OK fine but it doesnt rule out the possibility that playing video games is also one of the factors ... So a ban will help curm the CTS ... argument doesnt fall apart.... so C is not the answer

KnewtonAlex · Answer

This is what we at Knewton call a "negate weakener" question (others, including those in this forum, use the word "defender," which is not as clear, IMO). The assumption on which the argument depends is in disguise; what it really does is present a weakener to the argument and then assure us that the weakener is not in fact true. To spot these, deny the assumptions to reveal the weakener.

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

Negate it:

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

Well, if most parents would buy video games, then prohibiting adolescents from buying them themselves would not work. There would be an alternate strategy by which adolescents could acquire their games. Therefore, (-d) must be FALSE, and (d) must be TRUE.

TommyWallach · Answer

Hey All,

I'm happy to help out on one of our questions!

The important thing with this question, as with the majority of CR questions, is to focus on the EXACT wording of the conclusion. In this case, we can paraphrase to say "Federal legislation that you can't sell games to minors will HELP PREVENT kids from getting carpal tunnel."

Now, let's go through the ACs.

A. The majority of federal legislators would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of video games to minors.
 -- The question isn't whether or not the legislation will pass, but what would happen if it did.

B. Not all adolescents who play video games on a regular basis suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.
 --This isn't the point either. We want to totally keep kids from getting carpal tunnel, so that only applies to the ones that do get it.

C.Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.
 --This isn't the issue either. We never said we would stop all cases of carpal tunnel, but only that we would "curb" it.

D.Most parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.
 --Aha. Now we have a problem. If parents just go out and buy the games for their kids (because only minors were prevented from purchasing it in the legislation), then nothing is going to change.

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 question isn't about whether video games are bad or good. The question is whether or not we can keep them from causing carpal tunnel.

The correct answer here is D.

Hope that helps!

Tommy Wallach

BarneyStinson · Answer

This is actually an excellent GMAT trap question. The question is to identify the assumption, not to see if the conclusion can fall apart or not. Classic difference between strengthening the stimulus and understanding the core logic in the stimulus to drive to the conclusion.

The techniques that honeyrai and gmatpill both used are applicable for strengthening the conclusion. Playing more video games causes carpal tunnel syndrome - a regular cause and effect scenario. Negating the cause, or breaking the relationship, or showing that no alternatives exist between the cause and effect are all techniques applicable for either strengthening or weakening questions.

Assumption on the other hand tries to justify the conclusion. A premise is presented that teenagers run a greater risk when they play more video games. The conclusion drawn is that prohibiting sales of video games should fix the problem. What could possibly justify the conclusion? Cigarette smoking is always advertised as injurious to health, yet, some states literally survive on taxes that come from the sales!!!! In similar lines, even if sales of video games are prohibited, rather restricted, it is up to the parents to make sure they don't buy neither do they allow their teenagers to buy those games anymore. Until that is assumed, the conclusion cannot stand on it's own!!!!

True, the answer must be D.

adhithya · Answer

hi guys had a doubt in this question
the author says that federal legislation would be helpful in curbing the problem,so one of his assumptions is that the legislation might be passed,thatis even the federal legislators would agree with his opinion on video games,so why cant (A) be a plausible option

KarishmaB · Answer

Further to mailnavin1's point, an assumption supports the conclusion.
The conclusion here is "A law that prohibits sale of video games to minors would help curb this condition" i.e. a law would help.

If you want to negate this conclusion, you will say, "a law will not help." You will not say, "Such a law cannot be passed."

So this conclusion does not depend on whether the law will be passed. The author just says that if the law is passed, it will help. He assumes that a law will work because adults will not buy the games for minors.

sushbis · Answer

Why not C? Here the author says "prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents. " Doesnt he assume here that the only cause for wrist condition is playing video games. If that is not the only cause, then this legislation will not have its intended effect.

IanStewart · Answer

As my mac dictionary says, 'curb' means 'keep in check'. It does not mean 'eliminate completely'. So as long as the legislation helps to reduce the incidence of carpal tunnel, it is having its intended effect. It doesn't make any difference if there are other causes. Taking a similar example, if I say that emissions controls on automobile exhaust will help reduce air pollution levels, I'm not assuming that automobiles are the *only* cause of air pollution; I'm only assuming that they are one cause.

NikTav · Answer

I get where you guys are coming from, but doesn't the data in C substantially weaken the argument? The argument is that this legislation will curb the condition. If by means of some other activity, say cricket, adolescents are still able to get this wrist condition, how is the legislation curbing it? Still not 100% clear in my mind.

pqhai · Answer

Hi NikTav

For every CR questions, conclusion is key. What is conclusion here? 
The conclusion is: " prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents ". KEY word is " SALE ".

How "prohibit the  SALE " can curb the painful wrist condition? There must be a link between "sale" and "painful wrist condition". Let see the flow:   BUY video games ==> PLAY video games ==> HAVE wrist condition.   The assumption should be: STOP buying video games ==> STOP playing video games ==> CURB the painful wrist condition.

Option D. 
How to stop buying? Federal will stop all people (adolescents and even their parents) buying video games. Option D states the assumption by indicating the 'buying video games" will be stopped ==> adolescent cannot play video games anymore. D is correct.

Option C.  
The fact "Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome" is true. It just shows the cause of the wrist condition, but does not link " sales  video games" to "wrist condition" . Thus, it's not the assumption of the conclusion: "prohibit  SALES  videos games will curb wrist condition". That's why I said above "SALE" is key word.

C will be an assumption  of the conclusion "prohibits  PLAYING  video games to minors would help curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents".

In short, when attack CR questions, you should read a stimulus VERY carefully. CR differs from RC because CR stimulus is SHORT, but every word is important. Do not skim.

Hope it helps.

rrsnathan · Answer

I Choose C "Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome".

But this answer question my reason for selecting the Answer choice C.
"The conclusion that federal legislation prohibiting the sale of video games to minor would curb painful wrist condition among adolescents can only be true if their parents do not continue to buy these games for their kids. The games are prohibited to be sold to children, but not to adults who can buy it for them."

KarishmaB · Answer

Note that the conclusion says "Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would  help curb  this painful wrist condition among adolescents"

The conclusion says that it will help control the occurrence of carpal tunnel. It doesn't say that it will eradicate the condition. If a problem can happen in 3 ways and if you take care of one, you can certainly HELP CURB the problem. It may not eradicate the problem completely but it can definitely help reduce the occurence.
So we don't need to assume that carpal tunnel doesn't happen any other way to make our conclusion true.

But if adults buy games for kids then prohibiting the sale to kids will not help curb the problem. So for our proposal (that kids should be prohibited from buying these games) to have the desired effect (help curb carpal tunnel), it is necessary that parents not buy the games for kids.

Hence answer is (D)

aditya27cs08 · Answer

I am not sure that the line "Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents"
is the doctor's conclusion . Rather the line "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" 
is the doctor's conclusion .
So, according to this 'C' should be the correct answer .
correct me if I am wrong .

KarishmaB · Answer

No, the conclusion is the author's opinion; it is the main point of the argument. It is the opinion that the author wants to express and does so by writing the argument.

"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" is a fact given to you by the doctor (which we assume to be true since all premises are assumed to be true). It is not the doctor's opinion that adolescents who play video games on a regular basis are three times as likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome. This is what research suggests. Opinion is subjective so you will usually not find numbers in it. Here the author's opinion is that "legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb this condition"

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

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

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