In one study, hospital patients' immune systems grew stronger when the

Question

Warning! This is one of the five hardest LSAT questions I have ever seen. Those who wish to keep a sane mind, please do not continue reading this question. If you wish to torture yourself, I cannot stop you.

In one study, hospital patients' immune systems grew stronger when the patients viewed comic videos. This indicates that laughter can aid recovery from illness. But much greater gains in immune system strengthen occurred in the patients whose tendency to laugh was greater to begin with. So hospital patients with a greater tendency to laugh are helped more in their recovery from illness even when they laugh a little than other patients are helped when they laugh a greater amount.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:

(A) Overlooks the possibility that the patients whose tendency to laugh was greater to begin with laughed more at the comic videos than did the other patients

(B) Fails to address adequately the possibility that the patients whose tendency to laugh was greatest to begin with already had stronger immune systems than the other patients

(C) Presumes, without providing justification, that hospital patients have immune systems representative of those of the entire populations

(D) Takes for granted that the gains in the immune system strength did not themselves influence the patients' tendency to laugh

(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that the patients whose tendency to laugh was greatest to begin with recovered from their illnesses more rapidly than the other patients

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

The question is a bit tricky but elimination helps in being confident about (A).

Hospital patients' immune systems grew stronger when the patients viewed comic videos. This indicates that laughter can aid recovery from illness. 
But much greater gains in immune system strengthen occurred in the patients whose tendency to laugh was greater to begin with.

Conclusion: Hospital patients with a greater tendency to laugh are helped more in their recovery from illness even when they laugh a little than other patients are helped when they laugh a greater amount.

The conclusion is a bit out there. The argument just says that watching comic videos helps immunity grow. But it helped those people more whose tendency to laugh was more in the beginning (presumably because they laughed more while watching the video).
 
Then the conclusion confuses us with "if tendency to laugh is high, even if one laughs less than others, one recovers more"

Let's look at options (B) to (E) first:

(B) Fails to address adequately the possibility that the patients whose tendency to laugh was greatest to begin with already had stronger immune systems than the other patients

Definitely not true. We are talking about "gains in immune system". Even if their systems were better to begin with, we need to look at improvement only.

(C) Presumes, without providing justification, that hospital patients have immune systems representative of those of the entire populations

Definitely not true. The argument talks about hospital patients only. It does not conclude about entire population anyway.

(D) Takes for granted that the gains in the immune system strength did not themselves influence the patients' tendency to laugh

Not true. The argument talks about "tendency to laugh was greater to begin with". So the study measured the "tendency to laugh" in the beginning and then saw what kind of improvements were obtained. What happened to their tendency to laugh after gaining immune system strength is irrelevant.

(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that the patients whose tendency to laugh was greatest to begin with recovered from their illnesses more rapidly than the other patients
The argument gives justification : But much greater gains in immune system strengthen occurred in the patients whose tendency to laugh was greater to begin with.
It tells that people whose tendency to laugh was more had greater gains in immune system strength. Hence it does not presume without justification.

Now let's look at (A).

(A) Overlooks the possibility that the patients whose tendency to laugh was greater to begin with laughed more at the comic videos than did the other patients

Correct. We are not given in the argument that people with higher tendency to laugh laughed little. It is logical that those with higher tendency to laugh actually laughed more. But the conclusion overlooks this.

Answer (A)

Render · Answer

OA is A, since people with a higher tendency to laugh can only be detected when laughing  more/a lot , but not "little".

neha283 · Answer

Options A,B and D seemed promising to me. I marked D on the basis of reverse causal relationship idea. 
Maybe actual GMAT doesn't have such problems but some practice won't hurt.
Experts - could you provide some analysis and help in eliminating some choices?  VeritasKarishma   GMATNinja

TIA.

elderitch · Answer

I was torn between A and D as well. Reason for eliminating D:
The sequence of events mentioned in the argument: Higher tendency to laugh -> Exposed to comic videos -> stronger immune systems.
If we consider option D, then the sequence becomes Stronger immune system -> Higher tendency to laugh -> exposed to comic videos. Thus, since the immune system was already strong to begin with, it would not show up as getting stronger after they were exposed to comic videos.

warrior1991 · Answer

I must say this is a very tricky question. I am in a toss in between A and D.

generis   mikemcgarry   egmat  . Can you help

selale · Answer

The question separates the two groups without any explanation. 
The group that has tendency to laugh could be contained inside the group that watched comic videos...

A

sayan640 · Answer

VeritasKarishma

I still find this question confusing.
Can you please explain only why option A is correct ?
I am explaining my understanding here. Really hard question.

Because " Hospital patients' immune systems grew stronger when the patients viewed comic videos " , the argument concludes that " laughter can aid recovery from illness."
Then the argument tries to prove this conclusion wrong saying "much greater gains in immune system's strengthening occurred in the patients whose tendency to laugh was greater to begin with."
and finally arrives at the conclusion that 
"Hospital patients with a greater tendency to laugh are helped more in their recovery from illness even when they laugh a little than other patients are helped when they laugh a greater amount. "

But the argument can not arrive at the conclusion that it's the "greater tendency" that helped and not just 'laughter'.

If the patients with greater tendency to laugh at the beginning , laughed more at the comic videos than did the other patients then it's the 'laughter' that helped and not the 'tendency at the beginning".

The argument overlooks this.

Option A states this.

Not sure whether my understanding is correct.
 VeritasKarishma 
 chetan2u

What do you think of my understanding/ explanation ?
Please let me know...Thanks in advance...

abhinav261289 · Answer

VeritasKarishma , the below line explicitly mentions that that patients with a greater tendency to laugh, show better recovery even if the amount of laugh they have/had is lesser than the other category of patients. As per the explanation you provided , how can we refute the fact provided in the argument and claim that: "We are not given in the argument that people with higher tendency to laugh laughed little" ?

"So hospital patients with a greater tendency to laugh are helped more in their recovery from illness even when they laugh a little than other patients are helped when they laugh a greater amount."

ngochuyen1904 · Answer

Premise:

Laughter can aid recovery from illness
 Before watching comic video  
 Group A: whose tendency is greater (for example: 5 points)
 Group B: whose tendency is less (for example: 2 points)

Conclusion:

After watching comic video:  Watching helped Group B more than it helped Group A
Underlying assumption: 
After watching comic video, both Group A and B reached 10 points
 Comic video helped Group A increase 5 points while it helped Group A increase 8 points, clearly, watching video helped Group B more than it helped Group A

Pre-think:

What if after watching comic video, Group A and Group B reached 2 different levels?
For example, Group A reached 15 points while Group B reached 10 points?
In this case, Comic video helped Group A increase 10 points while it helped Group A increase 8 points
So, clearly watching helped Group A more than it helped Group B. Our conclusion is weaken
=> Option A tells us exactly what we’re just saying

navderm · Answer

Might I suggest removal of the warning message so people attempting this question get a fairer chance of concentrating on finding solution compared to finding excuse while they are attempting it. It's extremely distracting and honestly, the question isn't that hard.

Hovkial · Answer

Agreed. That red extraneous text is distracting and needlessly injected as some sort of jovial rejoinder.

MBAB123 · Answer

The question says that their tendency to laugh was already greater to begin with . "Begin with" is key here. This means that the tendency to laugh was predetermined/already tested (a definite fact) before the videos were shown and hence, D can be eliminated I am no expert but I hope this helps

zhanaraabdr · Answer

Could you please share the other 4

beeblebrox · Answer

In one study, hospital patients' immune systems grew stronger when the patients viewed comic videos //Let's say there are 10 patients in the hospital, I am assuming all the patients watch the same comic videos

This indicates that laughter can aid recovery from illness. //OK

But much greater gains in immune system strengthen occurred in the patients whose tendency to laugh was greater, to begin with. //Let's say out of 10 patients, 5 had the tendency to laugh more(Group: A) & the remaining 5 had the tendency to laugh less(Group: B). Let's say GROUP: A would laugh 8 out of 10 times & Group: B would laugh 4/10 times. Also, there was greater improvement in Group:A's immunity than in Group:B's immunity. I am also assuming that their laughing can be because of the comic videos or because of some other thing

So hospital patients with a greater tendency to laugh are helped more in their recovery from illness even when they laugh a little than other patients are helped when they laugh a greater amount./ / From this statement I can conclude that GROUP: A laughed let's say 6/10(this is down from 8/10 times) & Group:B laughed 4/10 times. Even in such a scenario, patients from GROUP: A have a better recovery than patients in GROUP: B

Considering the above points, I can very well conclude that even if  Group: A  people laugh less, they are still better off than  Group: B  people in terms of immunity. Also, I could eliminate options (B) to (E). But Option (A), makes no sense to my mind, huh!

"Overlooks the possibility that the patients whose tendency to laugh were greater to begin with laughed more at the comic videos than did the other patients" 
Does this statement mean that Group:A watched more comic videos than Group: B and so it is not about laughing less or more because improvement is linked to watching comic videos and improvement of the immune system is not merely the function of a tendency to laugh more?

VeritasKarishma   generis   AndrewN   GMATNinja   chetan2u , please advise?

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  beeblebrox . If you wish to quantify the information, you can do so, but I would suggest a change related to one of the body paragraphs of your analysis, the one that begins with  so . If  other patients... laugh a greater amount , then 4/10, the same number as before, does not seem fitting. They should laugh more frequently than before.

In any case, (A) is not saying that Group A watched more comic videos, but that the argument is based on this group actually  laughing  more than the patients of Group B did when viewing the comic videos. (We do not even know if the groups watched the same videos.) Perhaps because of the disclaimer, I second-guessed my initial read and spent an extra two minutes before I went with (A) as the hardest answer to argue against. (The only other option I was considering was (D), but I was uncomfortable with the order of events.)

I hope that with this new perspective on what (A) is actually saying, you can appreciate that it is a qualified answer. I see that  VeritasKarishma  has provided a full analysis of the question above. I am sure that will prove useful as well.

- Andrew

chetan2u · Answer

Hi

The mistake that you may be making is taking words little and greater amount relative to their earlier state. So you got 8/10 to 6/10 and 4/10 to say 5/10.

But I would take these words relative to each other. That is G(A) is laughing lesser than G(B). 
The conclusion says that the mere habit/behaviour/tendency of laughing more has helped the gains in immune system of G(A) rather than the act of laughing itself. It overlooks the possibility that G(A) must have laughed more because of their tendency to laugh more, and this would have been the reason for improvements in immunity.

So there is a shift in the reason for gains in immune system in the conclusion: From the actual act to mere tendency of laughing more. Option A bridges this gap.

This question suits the present scenario that’s all around. Laughter, positivity and immunity is the requirement of the day.

KarishmaB · Answer

Given:

In one study, hospital patients' immune systems grew stronger when the patients viewed comic videos.  (A study showed that viewing comic videos - implying "laughing" - helps immune system grow stronger. Presumably there was a control group to arrive at this. Say 100 patients were made to watch 10 comic videos every day. Another 100 were not. It was found that people who watched videos gained more strength.)

This indicates that laughter can aid recovery from illness.  (Hypothesis from the study)

But much greater gains in immune system strengthen occurred in the patients whose tendency to laugh was greater to begin with.  (When compared, it was found that people who had a higher tendency to laugh showed greater improvement say they showed 5 points improvement in immunity compared with those who had lower tendency and showed 3 points improvement. )

This is all that is given to you. The next statement is what the author is concluding. Before you read that, stop and think what you can conclude since you need to find a flaw in the author's conclusion. 
People who had higher tendency to laugh showed max benefit. I would think that this is because they were able to laugh more. Since they laughed more, they saw higher gains in immunity.

Author's conclusion: 
So hospital patients with a greater tendency to laugh are helped more in their recovery from illness even when they laugh a little than other patients are helped when they laugh a greater amount.

He is concluding that tendency to laugh controls how much strength immunity will gain. He says that people with higher tendencies, even if they laugh a little will be helped more (say they watch only 2 videos. They have higher tendency to laugh so they will LOL more per video so they must watch fewer video to laugh little). This is his conclusion from the given information. This is not given information. According to him, immunity gains depend on the tendency to laugh, not just laughter.

What is the flaw in his logic? 
The reason that people with higher "tendency to laugh" improved more could be because they laughed more. So it is possible that actually the amount of laughter decides how much improvement one will see. From the given information, we cannot say that even if people with higher tendency laugh less (say they see fewer videos) they will gain more benefit. No. The reason these people see higher benefits could be that they laughed more in each video they saw. Perhaps they LOLed 10 times in each video compared with lower tendency people who LOLed only 4 times in each video. In that case, immunity gains could depend on laughter, not on tendency to laugh. 
But the author fails to consider this. 
Hence (A) is correct.

SudhanshuC · Answer

Answer A

Laughter can  help improve  the Immune system. 
 Option B doesn’t address the improvement part. It simply states that the person already had a strong immune system to start with. So, option B is wrong.

Option A     clearly shows the author’s assumption. 
 If a patient laughs a lot to begin with, then he/she actually laughs more in total and hence, improves their health more.

In one study, hospital patients' immune systems grew stronger when the

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

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In one study, hospital patients' immune systems grew stronger when the

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

My Rewards