In studies of extreme isolationism, researchers tried to determine if there was a limit on age after which an "isolated" child would be unable to develop socially. One child, Anna, was an illegitimate child and became a foster child to a family that had no time to care for her. She was left in the attic often and was attended to just enough to allow her to survive. At age 5 she was sent to another foster home where she experienced more interaction, yet by the time of her death at age 8 her development had not progressed. In another case, Rebecca, also an illegitimate child, had a new set of caretakers at age 4 and began seeing social development at age 6. Her development from age 6-10 accelerated and she was considered to have normal social development by age 10. Researchers concluded that social development after extreme cases of isolationism cannot develop past age 5 for a child but can develop before 5.

Most Strengthen: Susan, another case of isolationism, saw just as much improvement in her social development as had Rebecca but her acceleration began even earlier at age 5 Since her social development started at 5 so it strengthens the author's claim Most Weaken: The care takers at Anna's second foster home were not experienced and did not to enough in teracting with Anna to help her develop socially, whereas Rebecca's caretakers were much more attentive and interactive So it weakens the claim since apart from age few of the external factors also hinders the development ,which ultimately weakens the claim Posted from my mobile device

Strengthen: Susan, another case of isolationism, saw just as much improvement in her social development as had Rebecca but her acceleration began even earlier at age 5. This strengthens the conclusion because it supports the idea that social development can indeed occur before age 5, as Susan saw improvement when her social development began accelerating at age 5, indicating a critical period for social development. Weaken: The caretakers at Anna's second foster home were not experienced and did not do enough interacting with Anna to help her develop socially, whereas Rebecca's caretakers were much more attentive and interactive. This weakens the conclusion by suggesting that the lack of development in Anna's case might be due to inadequate care rather than an inability to develop past age 5, indicating that social development could still be possible after age 5 with proper care and interaction. --- Children with no social interaction do not live past age 8: This is not relevant to the conclusion about the age limit for development. Johan: This contradicts the conclusion. Johan started interacting at 3 but didn't develop, suggesting the limit might be after 3, not 5. Martin: This is irrelevant. It describes normal development, not extreme isolation.

In studies of extreme isolationism, researchers tried to determine if : Two-part Analysis (TPA)

Most Strengthen	Most Weaken	Statements
		Susan, another case of isolationism, saw just as much improvement in her social development as had Rebecca but her acceleration began even earlier at age 5.
		Children with no social interaction do not live past age 8.
		Johan began experiencing social interaction at age 3 yet never developed socially by the time of his death at age 5.
		Martin was born to caring parents and was socially developed well before age 5.
		The care takers at Anna's second foster home were not experienced and did not to enough in teracting with Anna to help her develop socially, whereas Rebecca's caretakers were much more attentive and interactive.

In studies of extreme isolationism, researchers tried to determine if

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 Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions