GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Aug 2018, 09:36

### 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

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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
VP
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 1004
In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2008, 23:03
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

--== Message from GMAT Club Team ==--

This is not a quality discussion. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.

_________________

"You have to find it. No one else can find it for you." - Bjorn Borg

Intern
Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Posts: 5
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2008, 23:47
E.
The results of second study are contradicting to that of the first study.
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 739
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 00:36
amitdgr wrote:
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. oos
B) indicate that different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli.
true
C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure. both studies were two years
D) confirm the conclusion drawn from the first study. no, second group may have low agression rate after study or may have highest agression rate before study started
E) disprove the conclusion drawn from the first study. controls were different in second experiment. second group was pre exposed

B
Intern
Joined: 28 Oct 2008
Posts: 45
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 01:30
bigtreezl wrote:
amitdgr wrote:
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. oos
B) indicate that different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli.
true
C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure. both studies were two years
D) confirm the conclusion drawn from the first study. no, second group may have low agression rate after study or may have highest agression rate before study started
E) disprove the conclusion drawn from the first study. controls were different in second experiment. second group was pre exposed

B

Ditto!
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1474
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 02:25
While I await the OA, I think the answer should be E.

What is the conclusion from the first study? It is "TV plays an important role in generating aggressive behavior in children" without any explanation of short or long term exposure or of a specific community.

And the conclusion from the second study shows "no change in the aggression rate from 1973 to 1975".

Thus, clearly, results from the second study disapproves those from the first study.
Manager
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 58
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 02:28
E as well
Intern
Joined: 28 Oct 2008
Posts: 45
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 02:31
scthakur wrote:
While I await the OA, I think the answer should be E.

What is the conclusion from the first study? It is "TV plays an important role in generating aggressive behavior in children" without any explanation of short or long term exposure or of a specific community.

And the conclusion from the second study shows "no change in the aggression rate from 1973 to 1975".

Thus, clearly, results from the second study disapproves those from the first study.

Is it okay to assume that 1 study is more correct than another?
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1474
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 02:38
somerandomguy wrote:
Is it okay to assume that 1 study is more correct than another?

If result of the second study disproves the result of the first one, then will that not mean the two results are not in agreement? I do not think disproving will question correctness. I may be wrong.
Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2008
Posts: 226
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 03:51
B.

although the first study concludes about increase in aggresive behaviour in children
the second talks only about similar communities with no reference towards impact on childrens behaviour.
it can also mean there were significant number of children watching TVs in the first study, which may not be the case with second study.
Thus making the conclusions un-correlated.
VP
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 1004
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 04:03
OA is D.

(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.

I picked this question from here --- http://www.lsat-center.com/t1crS2ex.htm
_________________

"You have to find it. No one else can find it for you." - Bjorn Borg

VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1474
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 05:02
Hmmm..interesting.

So, is the stimulus saying that A --> B and from the second study not A ---> not B or I am interpreting too much here?
Manager
Joined: 26 Mar 2008
Posts: 94
Schools: Tuck, Duke
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 07:47
[quote="amitdgr"]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.---No need contrast
B) indicate that different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli.---there no mention abt social group
C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure.-- COrrect
D) confirm the conclusion drawn from the first study.---NO it is confirming
E) disprove the conclusion drawn from the first study-- NO strong
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 893
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 09:59

amitdgr wrote:
OA is D.

(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.

I picked this question from here --- http://www.lsat-center.com/t1crS2ex.htm
Intern
Joined: 28 Oct 2008
Posts: 45
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 11:02
:stupid

amitdgr wrote:
OA is D.

(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.

I picked this question from here --- http://www.lsat-center.com/t1crS2ex.htm

I feel the same way!
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 739
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 11:26
amitdgr wrote:
OA is D.

(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.

I picked this question from here --- http://www.lsat-center.com/t1crS2ex.htm

there are two issues with D that I would think causes it to be the wrong answer

1) The second study doesnt specifically suggest that children were involved
2) The second study could have addressed a community that was already as agressive as it could possibly be, or a community that wouldnt get agressive no matter how much tv they watched
Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 56
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 13:21
bigtreezl wrote:
there are two issues with D that I would think causes it to be the wrong answer

1) The second study doesnt specifically suggest that children were involved
2) The second study could have addressed a community that was already as agressive as it could possibly be, or a community that wouldnt get agressive no matter how much tv they watched

I think you are on the right track with 2).

The 2nd study says:
- children have been watching TV for a long time.
- no INCREASE in aggressive behavior during 73~75

This supports the Conclusion that a 'recent' introduction of TV will increase aggression. This says nothing of how aggressive the children in the 2nd Study's towns are already. It just says it doesn't change after you been watching TV for a while.

The only differing factor between 1st Study and 2nd Study is introduction of TV. This is why it supports the conclusion.
Intern
Joined: 28 Oct 2008
Posts: 45
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 14:53
bigtreezl wrote:
amitdgr wrote:
OA is D.

(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.

I picked this question from here --- http://www.lsat-center.com/t1crS2ex.htm

there are two issues with D that I would think causes it to be the wrong answer

1) The second study doesnt specifically suggest that children were involved
2) The second study could have addressed a community that was already as agressive as it could possibly be, or a community that wouldnt get agressive no matter how much tv they watched

I feel the same way. It's making an unwarranted assumption that the first group reacted to the stimulus (being introduced to the tv) in the same way as the children. What happens if the 2nd study was done in the hood/ghetto? Watching Ren and Stimpy would be hilarious to these peole compared to the aggression/violence they would actually see.
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 745
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2008, 15:37
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. – TV themes Not even discussed
B) indicate that different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli. - True but Second study was conducted for decades. So time line pays more effect than stimuli

C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure. – No long term effects discussed

D) confirm the conclusion drawn from the first study. – If so, the second study would have reported the same or sustained rate - which is true as per second argument

E) disprove the conclusion drawn from the first study. – nop

D - had had for sometime implies the second study group was in the TV exposure for some time - May be that the second study supporting the first study conclusion

D!
Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 105
Re: CR : Tough one  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Nov 2008, 22:27
I still suspect that people are looking at too many LSAT questions. But then, they are certainly much more available than released GMAT questions, so what else can we do? The only alternative is "imitation" GMAT questions created by people who have to duplicate the "thinking" behind the questions without violating the copyright. That's tricky.

OK, off the soapbox. This question turns a normal strengthen/weaken question inside out. The information about the second study, which appears here in the paragraph, would normally be a correct answer choice for a question asking: "Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the conclusion of the study?" In this case, that question actually shows up in statement form, as one of the answer choices: choice D.

I think the explanation can be expressed more clearly than the "official" one. The conclusion of the first study is a typical "cause and effect" claim: Television caused more aggressive behaviour in children. The most common weakness in any cause and effect claim is the possibility that something else was actually the cause. Conversely, to strengthen a cause and effect claim, you eliminate or reduce the possibility of another cause.

The second study looked at two similar communities over the same time period, where the only (known) significant difference was that these communities did NOT change from a "no TV" to a "TV" environment. In these communities, there was no CHANGE in the level of aggressive behaviour. This makes it much harder to conclude that some other factor other than TV caused the change in the first study, because that other factor would have to be some important but unrecognized difference between the first community and the two in the "control group". Therefore, the second study strengthens the conclusion of the first, which is choice D.

The logic is clear, but the wording isn't ideal. The phrase "two similar communities" is ambiguous: It should mean "two communities which are similar to the one in the first study", but it can easily be read as "two communities which are similar to each other". In the answer choice "confirm" can be interpreted as meaning "prove", whereas in fact the second study STRENGTHENS the conclusion of the first rather than PROVING it.

--== Message from GMAT Club Team ==--

This is not a quality discussion. It has been retired.

If you would like to discuss this question please re-post it in the respective forum. Thank you!

To review the GMAT Club's Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow these links: Quantitative | Verbal Please note - we may remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines. Thank you.

_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Re: CR : Tough one &nbs [#permalink] 07 Nov 2008, 22:27
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

Moderators: GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo

# Events & Promotions

 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®.