In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly before broad

Question

In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly before broadcasts began there, a study was made of children's behavior. A similar study in the same community, after two years of TV, showed that the aggression rate among children of this age had increased by 160%. The conclusion drawn was that TV plays an important role in generating aggressive behavior in children. A second study, covering the same years, was made in two similar communities that had had television for decades. This study showed no change in the aggression rate from 1973 to 1975. The results of the second study:

(A) suggest that the prevalence of violent themes in TV programming may be explained by the tendencies toward violence, which are deep-rooted in human nature.
(B) indicate that different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli.
(C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure.
(D) confirm the conclusion drawn from the first study.
(E) disprove the conclusion drawn from the first study.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Correct answer D.

This is a complicated question and requires a complicated explanation. It is important to keep in mind just what the reported results are. Perhaps most important, nothing is said about the absolute values of the aggression rates, but only about changes in the rates. And nothing is said about how the rates in the other two communities compared with those of the first. The first study correlated two changes-the change from no TV to TV in 1973, as well as the change in aggression rates from 1973 to 1975. The tentative conclusion is that the first of these changes was the cause of the second change. The second study focused on communities in which there was no change --they were already well accustomed to TV in 1973. (Thus the second study focuses on a sort of natural "control group.") That study found that there was no change of the second type - aggression rates in those communities remained constant from 1973 to 1975. The second study thus tends to reduce the plausibility of the suggestion that some change other than the introduction of TV caused the rise in aggressiveness in the first community. If there was some other cause, at least it doesn't seem to have been acting in the communities of the second study. And that reduces the range of possible candidates. Thus the second study tends to make more probable the conclusion drawn from the first study.

sharathnair14 · Answer

Hey  Bunuel , could you provide the official explanation for the other answer options. 
If the experts/moderators have more explanations, kindly do so.

sharathnair14 · Answer

Error Analysis.  Here's what I found.

A) A is wrong because it talks about what influenced Television Content. We're not looking for that.   OUT

B)B is wrong because it says nothing about different reactions among the communities studied on the basis of TV viewing. In fact, as you'll realize later, you'll know that we cannot compare the two studies because the demographics in terms of TV viewing is different between the groups in the first study and the second, for all their "similarity". The second group has had TV for decades. The first group has only had the TV for a couple of years. You can't rule out the possibility that the second study groups could have also had a similar increase in aggressiveness in the initial stages of their TV viewing experience.   OUT

C) C is wrong because it compares long term effects and short term effects. Effects? Yes, aggression is an effect. But the plural effects suggests that there were more than just one effect, and we certainly do not know about the other effects. This is a sort of Trap answer choice you'd be tempted to select out of urgency on Test Day.   OUT

D)D, At first glance seems wrong. On Test Day, You're probably Eliminating the wrong choices and more often than not an answer choice like this is the first you'd look at and say "This one's a goner!". But hold on,  Bunuel  has explained why this is indeed the right choice on this thread. I'd like to add more to  Bunuel  's reasoning. The mere fact that we're comparing two(actually three) similar, yet different set of communities (different in terms of TV viewing experience) (10 or 20 years of TV >> 2 years of TV) on the basis of research results requires one to read between the lines. It's a possibility that these communities, out of their similarity in all the things you could think of (eg- lifestyle, habits, etc.) with the community in the first study, might have had a similar increase in aggression when TV was first introduced to them.   KEEP 
 
E) The problem with E is that it seems so good and goes so well with the pattern of the passage. A great little trap. The conclusion from the first study gives us an observation about TV in its initial years after being introduced to a community. The second study is 10 or maybe 20 years too late. The aggression probably has already been developed for the researchers to notice. E is a tough trap to avoid because to understand it, you'll have to understand what isn't obvious from the passage.   OUT

Doer01 · Answer

Hi  Bunuel  ,
 The question I am about to ask is probably the stupidest question that you would have been asked so far on this forum.

I did understand the official explanation. But what learning should I take forward from this question that could help me in future to avoid marking an incorrect answer choice? Could I encounter a question in future that will have the same line of reasoning?

2794Aditya · Answer

By critical thinking and by POE, each wrong answer can be eliminated.

A, we do not know anything of the type of programmes viewers choosed nor we have any information about the human nature.  WRONG ANSWER

B, the second study shows that people did not have any change in the rate of aggression after 10 or 20 years of viewing TV, but the possibility that this group also experienced an increase in the aggression rates in their first two years cannot be eliminated. Hence, we cannot say that differents social groups reach  quite differently to similar stimuli . Further we are talking only about aggression,  a stimulus ; nothing can be told about other stimuli.  WRONG ANSWER

C, long-term exposure may have had effects other than aggression (eg. vision impairment) which may not be a short-term effect. We do not have any information about the effects other than aggression.  WRONG ANSWER

D, though the second study doesn't confirm that TV viewers in their initial two years had increased rate of aggression, there is no evidence opposing the view that there is no increase in the rate of aggression in the initial two years. Hence, this choice cannot be eliminated.  WAIT FOR OPTION E.

E, as explained in option D, there is no evidence to disprove the conclusion in the first study.  WRONG ANSWER.

Therefore, by POE  option D is the CORRECT ANSWER.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly before broadcasts began there, a study was made of children's behavior. A similar study in the same community, after two years of TV, showed that the aggression rate among children of this age had increased by 160%. The conclusion drawn was that TV plays an important role in generating aggressive behavior in children. - The assumption is that there is no alternate cause. The conclusion would be shattered if there were an alternate cause, such as societal, economic, or cultural.

A second study, covering the same years, was made in two similar communities that had had television for decades. This study showed no change in the aggression rate from 1973 to 1975. - The second study confirms that there are no alternate causes because, had any alternate causes, such as societal, economic, cultural, etc., that would have impacted the aggression rates in the 2nd study, the two areas covered in the second study would have been similar to the first region. There could have been an increase in these two areas when they started having the TV decades back, but that may have become a norm now.

The second study acts as a baseline concerning which the 1st study is compared. 
Let's extend the scenario in the 1st study. We know from the argument that from 1973 to 1975, the aggression rate increased by 160% - say it was X earlier, it became 2.6X in 1975. So if TV was the reason, then if we did a study again in 1976, what aggression rate would we expect? 2.6X. But imagine there was another factor at play: economic conditions, which worsened from 1973 to 1975 and further drastically improved in 1976, say with some change of government or new government policies. Then, this increased value of 2.6X may become X again in 1976. The issue that caused the increase has been removed, and the aggression rate is back to normal.

So, as the argument here doesn't extend the dates in the first study beyond 1975, we need some baseline to compare with a scenario where TVs were already present. If the introduction of TVs were the real reason, the control group (after the first introduction of TV, there would practically be no increase) would not have any change.

The results of the second study:

(A) suggest that the prevalence of violent themes in TV programming may be explained by the tendencies toward violence, which are deep-rooted in human nature. - The question asks about the 2nd study, and the discussion about the prevalence of violent themes in TV programming in the 1st study is out of scope.

(B) indicate that different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli. - The argument says similar social groups. Opposite.

(C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure. - comparison between short term and long term is out of scope.

(D) confirm the conclusion drawn from the first study. - ok. Acts as a baseline/control group.

(E) disprove the conclusion drawn from the first study. - opposite.

RiyaJ0032 · Answer

Hello,

can some expert please provide an explanation for this question

Thank you!

KarishmaB 
 GMATNinja 
 DmitryFarber

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

This isn't a great answer. At best, we could say the official answer is overstated. If it said "support" rather than "confirm," it would be a bit more plausible. But "confirm" implies that the result from one additional study proves the conclusion of the initial study clue. That's nowhere close to the case.

The underlying idea is that if we see correlation (TV shows up, aggression increases), we still don't know that there is a causal relationship between the two things. We can strengthen the causal argument by ruling out competing causal explanations, or by showing a plausible mechanism for the increase. Conversely, we can weaken by showing some other causal explanation. In this case, D is trying to show that a community that already had TV didn't have a spike in aggression during that period, so perhaps there was no obvious alternative cause. But this is only a very mild strengthener, if it's a strengthener at all. We're told the communities were similar, but were the rates of aggression similar? Did the other towns see spikes back when they got TV? In any case, if the first town was so remote that it didn't get TV until 1973, how similar could it have been to the other towns? How do we know there weren't other causal factors at play in this town?

There's no other valid answer, but D--or better yet, the whole question--needs to be rewritten.

msara75 · Answer

Premise:

1. Town A (no TV before 1973): 
1.1 A study before TV: baseline aggression levels.
1.2 A study two years after TV introduced: aggression rate increased by 160%.
1.3 Conclusion: TV may cause aggressive behavior in children.

2. Towns B and C (already had TV for years): 
2.1 Studies from 1973 to 1975 show no change in aggression levels.
2.2 These towns had long-term exposure to TV.

What is being asked?  
How do the results of the second study relate to the conclusion of the first study (that TV increases aggression)?

(A): Talks about human nature and violent tendencies, which isn’t discussed in the passage.

(B): There's no mention of different social groups reacting differently. All towns were similar.

(C): The second study says no change in aggression, not a comparison between long-term and short-term effects.

(D) confirm the conclusion drawn from the first study. Because:
1. The second study shows no increase in aggression in towns that had already been exposed to TV.
2. This actually supports the idea that TV was the cause of the rise in aggression in Town A.
3. Why? Because the aggression only rose after the introduction of TV in Town A.
4. In contrast, in towns where TV had already been around, the aggression levels were stable — meaning the increase in Town A wasn't due to some unrelated general trend.

(E): The second study does not disprove the first — it supports it, by showing that aggression didn’t rise elsewhere.

In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly before broad

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly before broad

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