It is currently 19 Nov 2017, 14:53

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly

Author Message
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2006, 09:39
GMATT73 wrote:
Tough call between C and D. For D to be correct we would have to assume that the aggression rates of the children exposed to the TV for decades were already high to begin with.

Changing answer.. C must be the correct answer.. Here is the key :
demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure.

Do you get it ???

I wasn't somehow very convinced by D when i reached D using POE.. Rereading helped me..

Gr8 job GMATT73..

Sharad - even i chose C in the beginning and could not imagine D would ever be correct. I think C is a very craftily created choice because we can clearly expect short term and long term effects coming into play.

However whilst the SHORT TERM effect of TV has been established in the passage, there is no evidence pointing to LONG TERM effect in the passage. Hence there is not enough information in the passage for us to conclude what has been mentioned in choice C.

So D is by POE the only choice.

However I don't quite endorse the fact that just because D doesn't refute the argument it can be interpreted to mean it that it supports it. Or may be I am not able to understand..

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 13

CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2892

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 0

Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2006, 10:51
rnachloo wrote:
PS_Dahiya, I have a question for you based on your explanation.

You are saying that "
The only thing that can weaken the first study is another reason for increase in aggressive behaviour. "

The first study says that TV has an influence in the agressive behavior, the second study doesn't show another reason for the aggressive behavior, I agree.

What I don't understand is, the second study did not find any change in behavior between 1973 to 1975. Then does it not cast doubt on the first argument?

Lets take another example.
One study says that sudden increase in cases of malaria in city X is presence of standing water in the vicinity of city X due to extreme rainfall this year. Standing water attarcts mosquitoes . Other study say that city Y that have climatic conditions, including rainfall, same as those observed in city X this year, the cases of malaria did not rise this year.

Lets analyze this:
As in any cause effect relationship, ask yourself a questiion: Is the cause given the real cause of the effect? What if the incease in cases is due to some other insect that got favourable conditions due to extreme heat in city X.

But second study says that there is no increase in number of cases in city Y eventhough climatic conditions in both cities are same. If there would have been other cause then cases would have gone up in city Y. This means second study is eliminating the alternate cause for the effect. Hence its supporting the first study.

Hope this helps.

_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Kudos [?]: 336 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 111

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Location: London

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2006, 13:15
Clearly D.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 2302

Kudos [?]: 483 [0], given: 0

Schools: Darden
Re: CR: Study of television [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2006, 15:19
I chose C. I understand the explanations given by others for choosing D, but I think that the question forces the reader to determine what it means by 'long-term' and 'short-term'. 2 years is indeed long-term when compared to the scope of the initial study, so I think that C is a valid answer given the parameters set up in the question.

What is the source of this question? Not the OG I would bet. Some of the other guides seem to use question writers that like to ignore logical flaws.

Kudos [?]: 483 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Study of television   [#permalink] 31 Jul 2006, 15:19

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 24 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.