Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is a condition characterized by an in

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

The author's conclusion pops up at the end, where she states that Ed is likely to have ADD because he watches television a lot and is seven. The key piece of evidence is the recent study cited by the author that states that 85% of seven-year-olds with ADD watch more than five hours of television per day. The study thus discusses only the television-watching habits of seven-year-olds who have ADD. The author's conclusion is flawed because it makes a conclusion about a seven-year-old television watcher based on a study about sevenyear-old television watchers with ADD. In other words, there's a scope shift between the evidence and the conclusion. The author errs in accepting the survey as relevant to Ed. (B) expresses this flaw most clearly: In order to make conclusions about Ed and whether he might have ADD, the author must come up with evidence that pertains to Ed, since the original evidence does not. She needs a statistic that states the likelihood that a seven-year-old who watches more than five hours of TV a day would have ADD. The evidence provided sounds like that, but isn't, and (B) captures the gist of the author's mistake. (B) wins.

(A) is confusing, but the argument isn't really about degrees of causation. The author doesn't suggest that age and television-watching cause a child to contract ADD, but that those factors generally appear with the disorder. (A) distorts the author's conclusion by suggesting that it says that Ed's television-watching has caused him to contract ADD, but the author never suggests this.

(C) Yes, the description of ADD symptoms is limited in the manner cited in (C), but that's not a problem. Perhaps some doctors might disagree with the author's definition, but its validity is not the issue at the heart of this argument. Rather, the argument's concerned with Ed's chances of having ADD based on a particular study.

(D) directly contradicts the stimulus, where we learn that Ed does actually watch more than five hours of television per day You may have also noticed that the 15% figure is bogus—it's derived from the 85% figure in the stimulus, but that figure refers to the percentage of children with ADD who watch more than five hours of TV a day. Inferably, we can therefore say that 15% of children with ADD do not watch more than five hours of TV a day, but we can't turn this into 15% of children in general who don't watch more than five hours, as (D) attempts to do.

(E) again distorts the argument, which never suggests that television watching causes ADD. Since no causality is mentioned, we can only assume that the data represents a correlation.
_________________

The answer is B
After sorting through all the blah blah in the argument;-
95% of 7 year old kids who suffer from Inability to focus (ITF) watch more than 7 hours of TV.

Assess this argument
95% of patient with anaemia have grey hair. (100 patient = 95 have grey hair=> quite possible)
Does it means that 95% of grey hair people suffer from Anaemia -No (1 billion old people with grey hair... are 950,000,000 anaemic => ABSURD )

Similarly
Having four legs and a tail defines an animal=yes
Does all normal cows have four legs and a tail=yes
Are all cows animal? = yes
Are all animals Cow?= No , the set of animals is huge and cow is just a subset of animals. So are dogs, monkeys, bears, cheetah... etc etc

Similarly
Water is a beverage=yes
Vodka is a beverage=yes
thus water is vodka = no


Coming back to our original question
95% of 7 year old patient = Watch 7+ hours TV
Jimmy is 7 year old and watches 8 hour TV so DOES Jimmy has ITF ?? ====> NO
Why ??=====> because Jimmy is not a ITF patient | Jimmy is a normal kid.
Argument tells us that 95% of ITF ill kids watch more than 7 hour of TV
BUT the argument tells us nothing about how many regular healthy kids watch 7+ hours of TV.
AND the argument tell us nothing about what percent of total population of 7 year old are suffering from ITF. (Total population of kids = Healthy Kids + kids with ITF)


OPTION B reinstates the same logic in other words.
(B) Fails to indicate the chances of having this condition among seven-year-old children who watch more than 7 hours of television a day


This is a classic case of mistaken syllogistic reversal that causes mistaken cause-effect error.


"Inability to concentrate" is a condition characterized by an inability to focus on any topic for a prolonged period of time, and is especially common among children five to ten years old. A recent study has shown that 95 percent of seven-year-old children with this condition watch, on average, more than seven hours of television a day. It is therefore very likely that James, age seven, suffers from this condition, since he watches roughly eight hours of television a day.
The argument above is flawed because it
(A) cites as a direct causal mechanism a factor that may only be a partial cause of the condition in question
(B) fails to indicate the chances of having this condition among seven-year-old children who watch more than 7 hours of television a day
(C) limits the description of the symptoms of this condition to an inability to focus for a prolonged period of time
(D) fails to consider the possibility that James may be among the 5 percent of children who do not watch more than 7 hours of television a day
(E) does not allow for other causes of this condition besides television watching

hi,
the question is of 700+ difficulty. reason : there is a subtle shift in focus/scope..
the argument basically tells us about TV watching habits of people suffering from ' inability to concentrate'. It never tells us that it is watching TV, a habit which is leading to this problem..
So its important that we donot fall prey to this subtle change and reread the stem to see through the problem...
now lets look at the choices available...

(A) cites as a direct causal mechanism a factor that may only be a partial cause of the condition in question..
Does the author ever mention that watching TV is the cause, partial or main. No, she doesn't.
She just says that these people watch TV for more than 7 hrs. So the most likely choosen wrong answer.
(B) fails to indicate the chances of having this condition among seven-year-old children who watch more than 7 hours of television a day
this statement tells us that the author has failed to establish a link of people suffering the disease to their watching TV. So correct
(C) limits the description of the symptoms of this condition to an inability to focus for a prolonged period of time
Can be easily eliminated
(D) fails to consider the possibility that James may be among the 5 percent of children who do not watch more than 7 hours of television a day
Can be eliminated as the author does say that he watches TV for more than 7 hrs
(E) does not allow for other causes of this condition besides television watching
same as A. Author never discusses watching TV as a cause
_________________

Ans : I feel , it is A

(A) cites as a direct causal mechanism a factor that may only be a partial cause of the condition in question-------YES , it makes sense because we cannot conclude that james suffers from this condition just because he is watching TV for more than 8 hours.Partial cause --> might exist pointing to the possibility that James falls in the 5% bracket

(B) fails to indicate the chances of having this condition among seven-year-old children who watch more than 7 hours of television a day--------- WRONG---The argument explicitly mentions that 95 % of children watching more than 7 hours of TV a day


(C) limits the description of the symptoms of this condition to an inability to focus for a prolonged period of time----WRONG---We are not bothered of symptoms here

(D) fails to consider the possibility that James may be among the 5 percent of children who do not watch more than 7 hours of television a day---WRONG--The arguments explicitly mentions -James watch TV roughly 8 hours a day

(E) does not allow for other causes of this condition besides television watching---WRONG---The final statement in the argument(conclusion ) says that--"It is therefore very likely that James, age seven, suffers from this condition, since he watches roughly eight hours of television a day."----So , there is a sense of only possibility here by using the words " very likely". So we cannot conclude--The argument does not allow for other causes....

Please correct me if I am wrong

Kudos if this helps :D

I have to admit that I was torn between A and B. I ended up chosing B.

A) "a factor that may only be a partial cause" The only factor provided by the study is "kid's television watching". Now we could cast some doubt on the study, saying that it is not accurate, or that there are other studies portraying different results, but there is no trace of these two anywhere in the argument. Thus we don't have evidence to belie the studies' findings and if we don't have evidence to belie them, then they shuold be accurate. If they are accurate this statement is false.

B) the argument concludes that: "It is very likely that James suffers from this condition". We are not sure whether james suffers of this condition in the first place.In other terms His staying 8 hours a day in front of a tv screen doesn't assure us that he suffers of this condition. The argument is faulty of assuming it, thus this is the flaw and the correct answer.
_________________

"Inability to concentrate" is a condition characterized by an inability to focus on any topic for a prolonged period of time, and is especially common among children five to ten years old. A recent study has shown that 95 percent of seven-year-old children with this condition watch, on average, more than seven hours of television a day. It is therefore very likely that James, age seven, suffers from this condition, since he watches roughly eight hours of television a day.

The argument above is flawed because it

A. cites as a direct causal mechanism a factor that may only be a partial cause of the condition in question
here is a correlation vs causation issue. While it can be true in reality that TV may induce some focus problems here the issue os of correlation not of partial or direct causation.

B. fails to indicate the chances of having this condition among seven-year-old children who watch more than 7 hours of television a day
People with inability may accidentally watch more TV but that does not indicate or decide their condition.
So whoever watches more TV may not necessarily have the same condition.

C. limits the description of the symptoms of this condition to an inability to focus for a prolonged period of time........there is no mention of symptoms here in the argument.

D. fails to consider the possibility that James may be among the 5 percent of children who do not watch more than 7 hours of television a day...........it is mentioned that he watches it for 8hr on average per day so even if he belongs to remaining 5% this does not define the flaw in the conclusion based on his inability.

E. does not allow for other causes of this condition besides television watching..............this does not explain the inherent flaw.

My 2 cents:
Assume, # of 7 years old kids = 1000
# of 7 years old kids with "Inability to concentrate" = 100
95% of there kids (i.e. 95 kids) watch > 7 hrs of TV
other 5 may with "Inability to concentrate" may watch > or < 7 hrs of TV

But other 900 kids may watch > or < 7 hrs of TV but still MAY NOT suffer from "Inability to concentrate"
So it is flawed to draw conclusions based on such a small sample size of observed kids.

To me B seems to be the best choice;

Unless we know the general probabilities for 7 years olds that watch more than 7 hours of TV each day to suffer from attention deficiency we cannot judge the chances of the given child to be affected.

There could be only 5% of 7 years old suffering from that condition, hence even if our given child engages in activities that hind to suffering from the condition, there is still a massive chance that he belongs to the "other 95%", regardless of his behavior.
_________________

To summarize the argument in simpler words: 95% of 7-year olds with condition A watch television more than 7 hours a day. A 7-year old boy watches TV more than 7 hours a day. Therefore, he has condition A.

We can transform this argument into a simpler one to make the flaw more obvious:

95% of Italians eat pasta. James eats pasta. Therefore, James is an Italian.

We then need to find the answer choice that describes this flaw. B is super-convoluted, but it does exactly that.

Responding to a pm:



"Inability to concentrate (ITC)" is a condition...
95 percent of 7-year-olds with this condition watch a lot of TV.
James watches a lot of TV.

So, it is likely that James suffers from Inability to concentrate.

Forget the options for the time being. Focus on what is given and what we are concluding. 95% of children suffering from ITC watch too much TV. So if a child is suffering from ITC, it is highly probable that he watches too much TV (because 95% such children watch too much TV).
But if a child watches too much TV, can we say that he probably suffers from ITC? No.

Consider this:
Total children = 100
Children who watch too much TV = 50
Children with ITC = 10. Of these 10, 9 watch too much TV.

If I know that James belongs to 10 of ITC, I know it is quite probable that he watches too much TV.
But if I know that James belongs to 50 of too much TV, can I say he has ITC probably? No.
So that is the problem here.

Option (B) handles it.
(B) fails to indicate the chances of having this condition among seven-year-old children who watch more than 7 hours of television a day

The argument does not tell us how many children watch too much TV. So we don't know how prevalent ITC is in that group.

Answer (B)

How often does 95% hard questions appear on gmat.. is it for someone who crosses 750??

Posted from my mobile device

the non-intersected venn diagram picture, which cannot be replicated and posted very well on the board, so I just put it in the attachment to illustrate my idea

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________