|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
19 Dec 2018, 10:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
45% (01:47) correct
55%
(01:45)
wrong
based on 437
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Health check-ups in schools of Wendhal have revealed that the eyesight of students has decreased over the last ten years. School authorities feel that long hours in the front of the computer can be the only explanation for this.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the statement made above?
Options:
1. The lunch provided to students in the schools in Wendhal provides the students with all the necessary nutrition required for a healthy eyesight.
2. Students of Wendhal schools spend more time and money on computer games than those of neighboring towns.
3. Schools in other cities where students spend as much time in front of the computer as students in Wendhal have not reported a decline in the eyesight of their students.
4. Many other places in the country have found that spending long hours in the front of the computer is not always related to poorer eyesight.
5. Many schools in other cities have reported larger decline in the eyesight of their students over the last ten years though they spend much lesser time in front of the computer than Wendhal students.
Source - IMS
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the statement made above?
Options:
1. The lunch provided to students in the schools in Wendhal provides the students with all the necessary nutrition required for a healthy eyesight.
2. Students of Wendhal schools spend more time and money on computer games than those of neighboring towns.
3. Schools in other cities where students spend as much time in front of the computer as students in Wendhal have not reported a decline in the eyesight of their students.
4. Many other places in the country have found that spending long hours in the front of the computer is not always related to poorer eyesight.
5. Many schools in other cities have reported larger decline in the eyesight of their students over the last ten years though they spend much lesser time in front of the computer than Wendhal students.
Source - IMS
ErikLewe
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Last visit: 15 Nov 2019
Posts: 54
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Sweden
Concentration: Finance, Statistics
Schools: Wharton '22
19 Dec 2018, 14:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
disenapati
This question would be 500 if it were not for the answer choices.
A --> Out of scope
B--> Strengthens argument
C/D/E all find the assumption made, that computer time reduces eyesight. C & D, however, provide some counter argument, but E completely removes the causality assumed.
Answer E
ShankSouljaBoi
Joined: 21 Jun 2017
Last visit: 28 Mar 2026
Posts: 599
Given Kudos: 4,090
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Rotman '23 (D) IIMA PGPX'22 (D) Desautels '23 (D) Schulich Sept '23 (D) WBS (D) IIML IPMX'25 (A)
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 620 Q47 V30
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.1
WE:Corporate Finance (Non-Profit and Government)
Products:
Schools: Rotman '23 (D) IIMA PGPX'22 (D) Desautels '23 (D) Schulich Sept '23 (D) WBS (D) IIML IPMX'25 (A)
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
Posts: 599
19 Dec 2018, 20:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
A and B Out
Lets analyze C D and E , per the understanding that this is a causal pattern.
c ----> Cause is present effect is not. Maybe some thing is offsetting the effect.
D----> Is not always related, but in many cases like Wenhal maybe related. OUT
E----> Cause not there, effect is present. Hence effect is governed not only by the cause in hand, there maybe some other causes. Sufficient to weaken.
Lets analyze C D and E , per the understanding that this is a causal pattern.
c ----> Cause is present effect is not. Maybe some thing is offsetting the effect.
D----> Is not always related, but in many cases like Wenhal maybe related. OUT
E----> Cause not there, effect is present. Hence effect is governed not only by the cause in hand, there maybe some other causes. Sufficient to weaken.
