It is true that students who meditate at least once a week do better o

A is also a classical pattern, "more likely" indicates a correlation, and A is quite out of scope.

pra1785, AS20
A is the correlation and A talks about more time to study of those who mediate -> sample is only partial and not relating to the question.
C shows direct link, and a causal relation

There are supposed to be only 3 answers, according to MGMAT. For those who want the OE, please go this link and type in the search bar 'meditate'. It will give you a two page answer.

https://books.google.com/books?id=7ADmC ... te&f=false

soodia,

I'd be happy to try and help! If my answer isn't sufficient, I have provided directions to the OE in my post above.

Let's analyze the question:

It is true that students who meditate at least once a week do better on the GMAT than those who never meditate. This finding does not show that meditation causes people to do better, since students who meditate are more likely than other students to have adequate time to study. -- Our conclusion is in blue.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument above?

(A) A person who meditates but has little time to study is more likely to give up other activities to allow more study time than a person who does not meditate and also has little time to study -- This is incorrect because of what it is comparing. We want to compare amount of free time to study. This says that students who meditate will give up more activities to study than students who do not. This, to me, not only implies a correlation between mediation and doing well, but it doesn't compare HOW THE STUDENTS DO ON THE TEST. It just shows that one will study more, and this is not what we are looking to compare. We want results, per our conclusion
(B) Among people who meditate, the more frequent the meditation, the better that person does on the test, on average -- This contradicts our conclusion
(C) Among the students who have adequate time to study, those who do not meditate do just as well on the test as those who do meditate -- This is almost word for word our conclusion. If all else is equal, it doesn't matter if a student meditates


Does this help?

wow
it was a great help
so, " since" is talk about the premise and I was wrong which I get the conclusion from that...
I think I got it

I am happy to help
Premise: Students who meditate at least once a week do better on the GMAT than those who never meditate.
©: This finding does not show that meditation causes people to do better.
Premise: Student who mediate are more likely to have adequate time to study than other students.
Assumption:
We should strengthen the claim that `It is not meditation but adequate time to study cause students to do better on GMAT’
So 'the student who not mediate but have enough time to study do just as well on the test as those who do meditate' is the greatly support

(A) A person who meditates but has little time to study is more likely to give up other activities to allow more study time than a person who does not meditate and also has little time to study.
= Among people who has little time to study, a person who mediates are more likely to give up other activities to allow study time than a person who does not mediate.
=>> It means that meditation help students to have more time that cause people to do better in GMAT => The answer weaken the argument rather than strengthen.

(B) Among people who meditate, the more frequent the meditation, the better that person does on the test, on average

(C) Among the students who have adequate time to study, those who do not meditate do just as well on the test as those who do meditate

Can someone please explain answer choices between A and C?

Can someone explain why C is the answer and why option A is wrong?

I still don't get it

Argument says meditation doesn't get betters scores but people who meditate have the time to study which gives better scores. So its the time that gives better scores and not meditation itself.

A says that a person who meditates makes time to study compared to the other person. Here, it is saying that the person meditating makes time to study to get better score. Isn't this supporting the argument ?

Whereas, C says AMONG the student who has time to study, meditating or not, both perform the same. How does this support the argument.

I am sorry I am so confused....

hazelnut, is there an OE for this?

I thought A is more complex, but after I reread A, it is totally out of scope.

A only compares between those who have little time to study, and the comparison is all about the likelihood of spending more time on study, this has nothing to do with the main issue, which is about study time and the result.

There are only 3 options. Isn't this question missing 2 options?

I really confused with this question

the argument says:
meditation---> better score
BUT
meditation-----> not better performance
meditation----> give more time to study

A) people who have little time to study: who meditate---> make more time to study we can conclude that, based on argument, he or she gives a better score

C) people who have adequate time-----> no matter they meditate or not ( since we know based on argument that time can affect on score not meditate)

two choices are correct!
could someone specify this, please?

Thank you very much for your help
but unfortunately, I cannot understand when choice A directly point out the relation between make more time and meditate( when we know from the argument which making time affect score) why choice A doesn't support the argument


Dear mikemcgarry Could you help please?

I don't think C can be correct answer. C is rather weakening the author's conclusion.

Lets assume both type of people have 100hrs
Mediation Group
Study time - 80 hrs
meditation time - 20 hrs

Non meditation group
Study time - 100 hrs
meditation time - 0 hrs

Score - Equal for both

Above implies that M group performed better than non-M group. It proves that meditation causes people to do better.

Hi,

I don't think you have understood this passage well.
The passage first introduces a study which shows that students who meditate have higher GMAT scores than those who do not. Of course, correlation != causation.
The author then states that it is not meditation which causes the meditation group to better, but rather the fact that if you meditate, it most likely indicates that you have more free time, which implies that you can dedicate more of your time to studying the GMAT, leading to a higher score.
This is a case of an "omitted variable", in which there is a third parameter (in this case, "free time left to studying") that is causing both of the effects.

Breaking down the answer choices with this in mind:

A) There is no indication from the information given in the passage on what a person who meditates but has little time to study will do with their time. This answer choice is pure speculation. There is no possible way, with the information in the stem, to derive A.
B) Wrong. This goes exactly against what the author states. It is not meditation itself that raises the GMAT score, but the fact that if you meditate you have more time to study, which means you likely study more, which leads to higher GMAT scores.

C) This is the last choice, and it is correct. Although there is some degree of speculation, we can still infer it from the passage. Consider the following chain of logic:
1) Students who meditate have higher GMAT scores than those who do not (given in passage)
2) It is not meditation itself that causes a higher GMAT score, but the fact that meditation students most likely have more free time than those who don't (given in passage)
3) Therefore, if you remove the omitted variable (free time to study) there is no reason to believe that there will be a difference between the two groups (speculative, but can still be derived from the information in the passage)

Moreover, in your argument, you have assumed that there is a linear, positive, and direct correlation with time to study=score. A correlation between time to study and GMAT score is indicated in the passage, however we do not know what type of correlation it is (it could very well be the case that overstudying causes GMAT scores to drop, since the student will be stressed out), so your argument only works if you add many additional assumptions, which will almost never be the case in CR questions.

This question is great for getting used to the PoE method. By eliminating A and B, you are left with C which MUST be the answer choice.

Hope this helps!