In Europe, schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calist

In Europe, schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calisthenics. North American schools rarely offer a daily calisthenics program. Tests prove that North American children are weaker, slower, and shorter-winded than European children. We must conclude that North American children can be made physically fit only if they participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?

(A) Physical fitness is a compelling national priority worthy of taxpayer resources.
Taxpayer resource? Out of scope

(B) School calisthenics programs are an indispensable factor in European student fitness.
Correct.

(C) All children can be made equally physically fit.
Argument is about the betterment of the American children as a whole and not about "all" children.

(D) European schoolchildren enjoy physical activities more than do American children.
This would weaken the argument.

(E) American physical education teachers are capable of designing a successful calisthenics program.
Teachers' capability is not the concern of the argument.

Really good question. I've always loved this problem for showcasing the critical importance of knowing *exactly* what the conclusion is saying. Here that "only" looms super large: the conclusion is not saying that North America should implement this program...it's saying that the only way to make N.A. children physically fit (whether or not anyone chooses to take this recommendation) is via a daily school calisthenics program. That's the only chance they have - not through recreational soccer leagues or healthy lunch initiatives or a 1000% percent tax on pizza and candy bars. This specific conclusion isn't saying we should make these kids fit...it's saying that *if* we want to, the ONLY way to do it is through this particular program.

This makes a couple things wrong with E:

1) Note that E is overly specific with who is capable of designing the program. Do we need it to be designed specifically by American physical education teachers? Why couldn't it be the teachers from London or Zurich who designed the Euro programs? Or scientists from Johns Hopkins?

2) It misses the point of the conclusion ever so slightly. If we had a conclusion that "the only way for humankind to survive global warming is to move to or colonize another planet" that conclusion can exist even if there's no known way to colonize another planet. The conclusion isn't saying that this plan will work...just that the others cannot work, so if there's a way to get it done it has to be done via this method (whether this method is possible or not).

In a larger context here, the huge lesson is to make sure you pay attention to specific language within the conclusion. The word "only" here does a ton of work to limit the conclusion to a really narrow meaning: daily school calisthenics are the ONLY hope for student fitness in North America.

Authot's argument : Europe has C in school programs > European child physically better
NA does not have such SChool programs > NA child physically weak.
conclusion : Install C in NA schools > NA child can get physically better ...
The author assumes that C in schools is the cause of physic in European children.. cause - C in schools , effect - physically better
He also assumes that there arent any other possible causes which could help EU child get physically better...


why B??
B says that the C programm in schools is mandatory . Negate it- C program is not mandatory ( voluntary) , ie children can attend the program if THEY WANT TO... This tells us that the EU child himself is eager to learn C and wants to get physically strong.. How does this weaken argument?? Author says that the C in program has helped EU child get physically stong .. and then concludes that ONLY C in schools in NA can physically make NA child strong... negating B tells us that the two samples ( NA and EU child) are not comparative ... The EU child himself wats to get strong ...but this may not be the case in NA ...even if we install C in schools in NA , the child may still not improve ... By saying ONLY C will help kills his argument.

why not D ??
D says EU child enjoys PHY more than NA child....so this is directly giving us an alternative cause as to why EU child is stronger than NA child ...because if he enjoys more he is likely to excercise more ...Here the two samples cannot be compared now...

gmatexam439 i hope you dont mind me resolving his doubt....

In Europe, schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calisthenics. North American schools rarely offer a daily calisthenics program. Tests prove that North American children are weaker, slower, and shorter-winded than European children. We must conclude that North American children can be made physically fit only if they participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis.

Step 1) understand the argument:
- in E schoolchildren devote time to C during each school day
- NA children are weak, bla bla bla
- NA schools do not offer C( even though it's given "rarely"... We'll consider "no program"..doesn't really affect the argument)
-conlusion: ONLY C in school program in NA daily > NA children physically fit.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?
Question- ASSUMPTION

Prethinking-

conlusion: ONLY C in school program in NA daily > NA children physically fit.

Falsification:
1)under what circumstance will NA children not get physically fit even if we put up C in schools on daily basis.?
2) under what circumstances will NA children get physically fit even if no C is put up

GIVEN THAT : EC devote time to C daily
EC fit than NAC
NA does not have C

Thought process:
Understand author's logic ( we do this step after falsification condition if you remember the videos)
The author first states the conditions in E. He says EC devote time to C in schools on daily basis. Then he presents a result that EC are physically fit than NAC.
Now before concluding he must have Thot that the program is making the EC stronger .
See he is actually linking two pieces together. A: EC devote time . B: EC stronger than NA.
He thinks that A lead to B.
Now the two situations can actually coexist without causal relationship. There can just be a coincidence. Even B could've lead to A. That is if EC are physically fit then that is why they attend calisthenics.
What if calisthenics did not lead to EC fitness??? Then how can author conclude that C will lead to NA fitness??

Where you went adrift is you just focused on the falsification condition and tried to come up with your answers and did not look into author's reasoning..
If you look at the videos carefully you will see that when we put up the falsification condition we say
What if bla bla bla , GIVEN THAT.... (The given that is the main logic where you have to attack)..you have to disprove author's logic he presents with the question. )

Falsification scenario: the calisthenics did not lead to EC fitness , something else did.. so author cannot make a link to conclude.
Assumption 1): calisthenics lead to EC fitness and nothing else did

attack 2) what if there is some other way to increase NAC fitness?? Maybe gym? Any reason will do.
Assumption 2) : nothing else can can make /increase NAC fitness

( Now you try to solve each answer choice with the process in your head. Third process is ANS choice analysis. But you do it so that you'll understand how the ans is relevant..you won't even need to negate the AC)

(A) Physical fitness is a compelling national priority worthy of taxpayer resources.

(B) School calisthenics programs are an indispensable factor in European student fitness.

(C) All children can be made equally physically fit.

(D) European schoolchildren enjoy physical activities more than do American children.

(E) American physical education teachers are capable of designing a successful calisthenics program.


If you have any doubts, please ask ( but also present your analysis)

Posted from my mobile device

Micky1005 I was confused with the same but chose B because of following -

For E, anybody can design the program. It doesn't necessarily has to be the teachers doing that. If we negate this statement, it does weaken the argument but does not shatter it completely.

If we negate B on the other hand, it does shatter the conclusion. If calisthenics is not integrated completely with European Students development, then there is no point for American students to follow that daily.

Really good question! Let me actually break down two important words in (C):

1) Equally. This is the one I've always used to eliminate this one. Do we really need them to be EQUALLY physically fit? If some kids are ready to compete for Mr. Olympia or the Olympic heptathlon and others are merely average-level club soccer players, we still have fit children. "Equally" is unnecessary...and actually kind of crazy if you think about it. That's a much taller task than just making people 'fit' - there's a bell curve for basically every measurement in the world (height, IQ, blood pressure, salary, whatever) so why would we need this *one* metric to be the one that can be perfectly uniform?

2) All. We don't need all children to become physically fit at all - we only care about North American children (for the purposes of this conclusion). So if a handful of kids in Russia or New Zealand simply can't become physically fit, that doesn't ruin the conclusion at all. The conclusion is perfectly fine with certain children not becoming fit...it only cares about a subset, so "not all children can become physically fit" doesn't wreck the conclusion.

Ohhhhh and actually that leads me to another big point for you about negation. When you negate an assumption you take the "logical opposite" of that conclusion, not the polar opposite. And the reason for that is we're really just testing "do we need this conclusion or not?" so the purpose of negation is to just remove that conclusion and say it's not true.

The logical opposite of "all children can be made physically fit" is "NOT all children can be made physically fit" - it's not "no children can..." or "all children cannot." We're trying to basically consider "no that's not true" to see if we need the assumption, and that's why the LOGICAL OPPOSITE is so important there.

Basically that technique - if you see a choice start with some/all/none, take the logical opposite of that. If it doesn't, then negate the verb in the main clause of the sentence.

gmatexam439 how D is weakening the statement ?

Can anyone please explain this question using e-GMAT's pre-thinking concept?

I came up with the falsification question: "Under what circumstances, North American children can made physically fit not just by participating in school calisthenics on a daily basis"?

Possible answers: 1. NA children can perform exercise outside of school
2. Teachers can come up with a different, more efficient schedule for exercise.

Can anyone please help me understand this? Any help from egmat would be great.

Narrowed it down to B and E.
In pre thinking I thought that American schools should be able to implement a calisthenics program. Then only we can think about improving the physical fitness. E states this.
B looked way to strong. Even if it is indispensable , how is that important to improving fitness in American schools.?Yes it is a factor but indispensable or not , why is that important.?
Thats why Chose E.
Can someone explain how my approach was wrong?

[quote="abyshek"][quote="AdityaHongunti"][quote="abyshek"]Can anyone please explain this question using e-GMAT's pre-thinking concept?

I came up with the falsification question: "Under what circumstances, North American children can made physically fit [b]not just by[/b] participating in school calisthenics on a daily basis"?

Possible answers: 1. NA children can perform exercise outside of school
2. Teachers can come up with a different, more efficient schedule for exercise.

Can anyone please help me understand this? Any help from

In Europe, schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calisthenics. North American schools rarely offer a daily calisthenics program. Tests prove that North American children are weaker, slower, and shorter-winded than European children. We must conclude that North American children can be made physically fit only if they participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis.

Step 1) understand the argument:
- in E schoolchildren devote time to C during each school day
- NA children are weak, bla bla bla
- NA schools do not offer C( even though it's given "rarely"... We'll consider "no program"..doesn't really affect the argument)
-conlusion: ONLY C in school program in NA daily > NA children physically fit.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?
Question- ASSUMPTION

Prethinking-

conlusion: ONLY C in school program in NA daily > NA children physically fit.

Falsification:
1)under what circumstance will NA children not get physically fit even if we put up C in schools on daily basis.?
2) under what circumstances will NA children get physically fit even if no C is put up

GIVEN THAT : EC devote time to C daily
EC fit than NAC
NA does not have C

Thought process:
Understand author's logic ( we do this step after falsification condition if you remember the videos)
The author first states the conditions in E. He says EC devote time to C in schools on daily basis. Then he presents a result that EC are physically fit than NAC.
Now before concluding he must have Thot that the program is making the EC stronger .
See he is actually linking two pieces together. A: EC devote time . B: EC stronger than NA.
He thinks that A lead to B.
Now the two situations can actually coexist without causal relationship. There can just be a coincidence. Even B could've lead to A. That is if EC are physically fit then that is why they attend calisthenics.
What if calisthenics did not lead to EC fitness??? Then how can author conclude that C will lead to NA fitness??

Where you went adrift is you just focused on the falsification condition and tried to come up with your answers and did not look into author's reasoning..
If you look at the videos carefully you will see that when we put up the falsification condition we say
What if bla bla bla , GIVEN THAT.... (The given that is the main logic where you have to attack)..you have to disprove author's logic he presents with the question. )

Falsification scenario: the calisthenics did not lead to EC fitness , something else did.. so author cannot make a link to conclude.
Assumption 1): calisthenics lead to EC fitness and nothing else did

attack 2) what if there is some other way to increase NAC fitness?? Maybe gym? Any reason will do.
Assumption 2) : nothing else can can make /increase NAC fitness

( Now you try to solve each answer choice with the process in your head. Third process is ANS choice analysis. But you do it so that you'll understand how the ans is relevant..you won't even need to negate the AC)

(A) Physical fitness is a compelling national priority worthy of taxpayer resources.

(B) School calisthenics programs are an indispensable factor in European student fitness.

(C) All children can be made equally physically fit.

(D) European schoolchildren enjoy physical activities more than do American children.

(E) American physical education teachers are capable of designing a successful calisthenics program.


If you have any doubts, please ask ( but also present your analysis)

[size=80][b][i]Posted from my mobile device[/i][/b][/size][/quote][/quote]



Thanks a lot. You indeed cleared my doubt. After reading your falsification question, I could immediately point B as an answer. I think, I went wrong at the falsification question step. I need to take more care on that aspect..[/quote]

Your falsification questions were right to the point , but they were not detailed enough...Also you stopped after falsification condition and directly jumped to thought process in which you did not consider the GIVEN ( author's REASONING) and tried to come up with your own REASONING... Try to make a falsification condition as DETAILED as possible...

For eg : this year disease X has downsized the amount of meat available from chicken as disease X affects chicken. Therefore this year the meat available from chicken will be less in amount than last year.

If we don't consider details
Probable falsification condition: what if other meat from cows or sheep increases??

Here you'll be considering the total amount of meat available.but the conclusion is only about meat available from CHICKEN and not total.

Detailed falsification condition:
What if somehow we can increase the amount of avaible chicken for meat?? What if we eradicate disease ?

Here you'll only be concerned with meat from chicken.

Note: this is just an example. I in no way imply that you would come up with the former falsification condition.

I chose E as my answer. Please correct my understanding.

I chose E because for these reasons:

The school kids in Europe participate in calisthenics program and hence the reason why they are physical fit. The last statement states that North American kids can be fit only if they participate in such programs.

So, I felt the assumption should be - If North America implements a similar program, to achieve the similar goal of making kids physically fit , we need to consider how the effectively the program will be run in North America.

So, we are assuming that these programs would be executed effectively.

In Europe, schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calisthenics. North American schools rarely offer a daily calisthenics program. Tests prove that North American children are weaker, slower, and shorter-winded than European children. We must conclude that North American children can be made physically fit only if they participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?

(A) Physical fitness is a compelling national priority worthy of taxpayer resources. -- Irrelevant

(B) School calisthenics programs are an indispensable factor in European student fitness. -- Best among the lot.

(C) All children can be made equally physically fit. -- "Equally" makes the statement too hypothetical to believe. Can't serve as a proper assumption.

(D) European schoolchildren enjoy physical activities more than do American children. -- Irrelevant

(E) American physical education teachers are capable of designing a successful calisthenics program. -- We can't say this from the information given. It just says that North American schools rarely conduct calisthenics programs but that doesn't mean the teachers there are unsuccessful

VeritasPrepBrian -

It was between B and C for me and i chose C

I thought C had to be the assumption because for the argument because

If there are kids that cannot be equally fit to the rest of the class -- introducing calisthenics in that case in North America would be pointless (Even if Europeans did it) for these kids

thus i thought -- C has to be true for ALL kids to be equally fit

If even one child cannot be fit -- introducing calisthenics for this child was pointless

Please let me know your thoughts

In Europe, schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calisthenics. North American schools rarely offer a daily calisthenics program. Tests prove that North American children are weaker, slower, and shorter-winded than European children. We must conclude that North American children can be made physically fit only if they participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?


Argument: Tests prove that North American Children are weaker , slower, and shorter-winded than European Children.

(A) Physical fitness is a compelling national priority worthy of taxpayer resources.

We are not talking about tax payers money here. It is out of context. Also the word " Compelling " is an extreme word which should be avoided.

(B) School calisthenics programs are an indispensable factor in European student fitness.
The argument states, that North American Children are weaker and etc than European children + Assumption states, Calisthenics programs are an important factor in European Children fitness = Conclusion: North American children can only be made fit if they have calisthenics programs.

(C) All children can be made equally physically fit.
If all children can be made equally physically fit, then why are North American children not fit.

(D) European schoolchildren enjoy physical activities more than do American children.
European school children like physical activities or not is a separate question all together. The schools forcibly implements these classes, so that they remain fit whether they like it or not. North American schools do not have any such provision. If all the decisions are left to students, they might not want anything that is why schools or other authorities play important roles in developing the personality of a child. And it is written in the conclusion also, that they will only become fitter if they participate in the school calisthenics on a daily basis, whether they like it or not.

(E) American physical education teachers are capable of designing a successful calisthenics program.
Neither in argument nor in conclusion have they mentioned about teachers capability of designing a program. They are talking about school implementing a specific program for it's students.


Hope it helps!

VeritasPrepBrian - I tried re-doing this and i selected E unfortunately.

I immediately eliminated B because I thought to myself

-- why does it matter for American kids if European kids consider School calisthenics programs are an indispensable factor in European student fitness.

It seems like a totally different group of individuals.

How would you suggest I get think about this problem

In Europe, schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calisthenics. North American schools rarely offer a daily calisthenics program. Tests prove that North American children are weaker, slower, and shorter-winded than European children. We must conclude that North American children can be made physically fit only if they participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis.

Which of the following is an assumption required by the argument above?

(A) Physical fitness is a compelling national priority worthy of taxpayer resources. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(B) School calisthenics programs are an indispensable factor in European student fitness. - CORRECT. Not a true assumption as one might think of but relatively better than other choices. It does require another level of assumption.

(C) All children can be made equally physically fit. - WRONG. Two extremes - 'all' and 'equally' and both are not required.

(D) European schoolchildren enjoy physical activities more than do American children. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(E) American physical education teachers are capable of designing a successful calisthenics program. - WRONG. There's no mention of PE Teachers, so it doesn't matter.

Answer B.
_________________

Hi Experts,

I'm not able to understand how Option B is correct. As per the 1st line of the passage "In Europe, schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calisthenics." Isn't option B restatement of this part of the passage.

I ended up selecting Option E as if we negate it we get "American physical education teachers are NOT capable of designing a successful calisthenics program" Thus even if American children participate in calisthenics on a daily basis, they wont be physically fit .

Thanks
Kitty

(B) says something different from what the passage says.

The passage says the following:

In Europe, schoolchildren devote time during each school day to calisthenics.

OK, so all the passage says is that European children do calisthenics.

Here's (B):

(B) School calisthenics programs are an indispensable factor in European student fitness.

(B) adds the information that calisthenics programs are "indispensable." In other words, (B) states the assumption that, to be fit, European children NEED calisthenics. This assumption is necessary for the argument to work. After all, the argument is that North American children can be made physically fit ONLY IF they participate in school calisthenics on a daily basis. To arrive at that conclusion the author must assume that calisthenics are NECESSARY. After all, if they are not necessary, then North American children may be able to become fit in another way.


Notice that the conclusion is not that North American children will become fit. It's just that they NEED calisthenics to become fit. So, we don't need to assume that a program they use will be successful.
_________________