Mr. Lawson: We should adopt a national family policy that includes leg

Mr. Lawson: We should adopt a national family policy that includes legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care. Such laws would decrease the stress levels of employees who have responsibility for small children. Thus, such laws would lead to happier, better-adjusted families.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?
(A) An employee’s high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family.
(B) People who have responsibility for small children and who work outside the home have higher stress levels than those who do not.
(C) The goal of a national family policy is to lower the stress levels of parents.
(D) Any national family policy that is adopted would include legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care.
(E) Most children who have been cared for in daycare centers are happy and well adjusted.

Answer is A : If an employee unhappiness and poor adjustment is caused due to high stress levels then the national policy would help them i.e employers will be required to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care.

I mean to say that this assumption is strengtening the conclusion

B is wrong because the argument is talking about the employee's who have responsibility for small children and not about parents who dont have any responsibility. The option is actualy out of scope.

strengthen questions must strengthen the conclusion of the arguement, here conclusion is
Thus, such laws would lead to happier, better-adjusted families. what laws? Such laws would decrease the stress levels of employees who have responsibility for small children

decrease stress --> happier

A states high stress level--> unhappiness due to poor adujstment , so reduce stress--> happiness strengthens conclusion

B is so close, but when you consider the conclusion of the argument, B doesnt state about anything that leads to happieness..

B is out of scope....when asked to strengthen the argument, we can being in new information, but not new to such an extent that it is out of scope. B exactly does this.

It compares people who work and people who do not, while the argument is purely concerned about working people.

A is the answer.

we need to consider employee as employer is mentioned.

people who work outside may include employee and businessman as well, who are not employed by any employer.

Mr. Lawson: We should adopt a national family policy that includes legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care. Such laws would decrease the stress levels of employees who have responsibility for small children. Thus, such laws would lead to happier, better-adjusted families.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?



So a proponent claims that national family policy should be enacted. This law will reduce stress among employees who have children. What can be said in favor of this claim to strenghthen it ?


(A) An employee’s high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family. (without too much thinking. keep it) After eliminating rest of options. this option looks the most logical, since our primary concern is to reduce levels of stress among employees, this in turn will have positive effect on their families.

(B) People who have responsibility for small children and who work outside the home have higher stress levels than those who do not. ( We are not concerned with comparison of employees who work outside of home vs home based workers. Nowhere is mentioned. out of scope.


(C) The goal of a national family policy is to lower the stress levels of parents. ( it is already mentioned in the passage. eliminate)

(D) Any national family policy that is adopted would include legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care. ( neutral. doesnt strengthen at all. eliminate.

(E) Most children who have been cared for in daycare centers are happy and well adjusted. ( okay so what ? We are concerned with reduction of stress of employees) eliminate.

Argument - National policy - employers must provide parental leave + govt-sponsored day care --> this implementation will decrease stress levels of employees who have children --> lead to happier, better-adjusted live

(A) An employee’s high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family.
- The argument says that implementation will decrease stress and thus lead to happier, adjusted life. However, we do not know the contribution of the stress levels to happier ... life. If stress levels contribute hardly 5% to leading happier life, then decreasing the stress levels will be to no avail.
- Correct

(B) People who have responsibility for small children and who work outside the home have higher stress levels than those who do not.
- This comparison is in-consequential. Consider a case stated above that the stress levels contribute hardly 5%, in such a case the comparison will not matter as long as the stress levels do not contribute.
- Wrong

(C) The goal of a national family policy is to lower the stress levels of parents.
- The goal of national policy does not matter. What matters is whether such laws can lead to happier life
- Wrong

(D) Any national family policy that is adopted would include legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care.
- "Any" is not required.
- Even in absence of "any", this option does not provide "additional information" to strengthen the cause and effect.
- Wrong

(E) Most children who have been cared for in daycare centers are happy and well adjusted.
- Initially I was confused between this option and option A.
- IMO, the trick is to catch the generalized point, "in day care centers".
- We do not know in what category do "most" children fall -- is it in the govt sponsored day-care centers or the private day care centers.
- Wrong

Dear Experts,
daagh nightblade354 VeritasKarishma - would appreciate your views on this question!

Seems like a good question. (E) is wrong because we do not care about children in this case. We just care about the parents and their feelings.

Premise 1- High stress can be reduced by implementation of law
IC- This will lead to happier families.
Establishing a linkage here would help strengthen the IC

Main Conclusion- Adopt national policy that includes parental paid leave and day care
Establish a linkage here with Premise 1 and IC. This will help strengthen the Conclusion

Falsification scenario- Under what scenario- such laws wouldnt lead to happy adjusted families
given - they lead to reduced stress scenarios for these parents
Falsification Condition- There is no relationship between stress and happy adjusted families. In that case the conclusion fails.

Statement A states that there is a relationship between stress and happiness. Hence this is our answer

got right answer in 1:18

since the premises and reasoning were pretty straightforward, its pretty easy to identify whats OOS, so by PoE you're left with choice A

A and B are very close options.
But B can be rejected because B attacks the premise. However A hits at the conclusion and is directly relevant.

Other options seems relevant but still far from attacking the conclusion / E.g. in E( children is mentioned but not families )

Option (A) "An employee's high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family" would indeed strengthen the conclusion that implementing the proposed family policies, such as paid parental leave and government-sponsored daycare, would lead to happier, better-adjusted families. This option directly links the reduction of stress levels, which would be achieved through the policies, with positive outcomes for family well-being.

Type: Strengthen
Boil It Down: National family policy -> Happier, better-adjusted families
Missing Information: The connection between stress reduction and happier families
Goal: Find the option that shows a clear connection between reduced stress levels and happier, better-adjusted families
Analysis: This prompt sets up a causal argument (National family policy -> Happier, better-adjusted families). That means the reasoning assumes that there's a connection between reducing stress levels and happier families. To strengthen, we need to select an option that either clarifies this connection or supports the idea that the proposed policy would have the desired effect.

A) Yes. This option directly links an employee's high stress level to unhappiness and poor adjustment in their family. By showing this connection, it strengthens Mr. Lawson's conclusion that adopting a national family policy with paid parental leave and government-sponsored day care would lead to happier, better-adjusted families.

B) While this option highlights that people with responsibility for small children have higher stress levels, it doesn't show how the proposed policy would reduce these stress levels.

C) Stating the goal of a national family policy is not evidence supporting Mr. Lawson's specific proposal.

D) Repeating what Mr. Lawson has said about what should be included in a national family policy does not strengthen his argument.

E) Providing information about children in daycare centers does not establish a connection between these centers and reduced stress levels for parents.

Additional Analysis About Option A)
The key to understanding why option A strengthens the argument requires paraphrasing the conclusion, and taking that paraphrase an extra step:

The argument is essentially saying that adopting a national family policy with paid parental leave and government-sponsored day care would lead to happier, better-adjusted families.

Paraphrased conclusion
That claim could be paraphrased to say: reducing employees' stress levels leads to happier and better-adjusted families.

Now read A):
An employee’s high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family.

And since A) supports the connection between stress reduction and happier families, it strengthens the argument.

Bigger GMAT Picture:
On tricky causal arguments, ACT/GMAC won’t just come out and say that it’s this other cause. That can be too obvious.

In this case, option A successfully strengthens the argument by providing a clear connection between reduced stress levels and happier, better-adjusted families. This reinforces Mr. Lawson's conclusion that adopting a national family policy with paid parental leave and government-sponsored day care would lead to the desired outcome of happier families.

Hi KarishmaB,
I was torn between (A) and (B) and ended-up choosing the wrong ans. Below was the reasoning to eliminate (A). I request you to correct my understanding here:

Stimulus:

Premise: Laws would decrease the stress level of employees having resp of small children

Int. con: Thus such laws would lead to happier, better adjusted families

Main Con: we should adopt national family policy


(A) Argument says: LESS STRESS ---> HAPPIER & WELL ADJUSTED FAMILY

This option says: HIGH STRESS LEVEL ---> UNHAPPY & POOR ADJUSTMENT FOR FAMILY

But If A ---> B, doesn't mean ~A ---> ~B, which will be a mistaken negation.

''High stress leads to Unhappy & Poor adjustment'' doesn't mean that ''Lower stress can bring Happiness & better adjustment. There can be other reasons as well for ''UNHAPPY & POOR ADJUSTMENT''

For ex: A + B + C ---> D, doesn't mean removing A leads to ''NOT D''

Please help!

KarishmaB GMATNinja AjiteshArun
Please help to understand why (A) is the correct ans. Below is my understanding:


(A) Argument says: LESS STRESS ---> HAPPIER & WELL ADJUSTED FAMILY

This option says: HIGH STRESS LEVEL ---> UNHAPPY & POOR ADJUSTMENT FOR FAMILY

But If A ---> B, doesn't mean ~A ---> ~B, which will be a mistaken negation.

''High stress leads to Unhappy & Poor adjustment'' doesn't mean that ''Lower stress can bring Happiness & better adjustment. There can be other reasons as well for ''UNHAPPY & POOR ADJUSTMENT''

For ex: A + B + C ---> D, doesn't mean removing A leads to ''NOT D''

Thanks

Hi ashutosh_73,

Let's take a look at the important parts of the argument:
1. {laws} would decrease {stress}
2. Therefore {laws} would lead to {happier, better-adjusted families}

These statements support what seems to be the author's main point (the conclusion), that we should adopt {laws}. However, there is currently no link between {stress} and {happier, better-adjusted families}. That is, we don't have any reason to believe that something that reduces stress will lead to happier, better-adjusted families.

Also, note the words the author uses: decrease, happier, and better-adjusted. In other words, the author does not say that {laws} would eliminate {stress}. He doesn't say that families would be happy or well-adjusted either (he just says that they'll be happier, and better-adjusted).

Finally, here's option A:

This option plugs one of the gaps in the argument by giving us a link between {stress} and {happier, better-adjusted families}, thus strengthening the argument.

The argument gives us a correlation, not a conditional.

Conditional: If people are stressed, they are unhappy.
Does not imply that if they are not stressed, they are happy. - Correct

But the argument says:
Lower stress leads to more happiness and better-adjusted families.

So as you decrease stress, happiness will increase - negative correlation
So say if stress measure goes from 100 to 60, happiness measure increases from 0.1 to 0.4.
This also means that if the stress measure goes from 60 to 100, the happiness measure will decrease from 0.4 to 0.1

In a correlation, when you decrease something and the other increases, it implies that if you increase the first thing, the other will decrease. There is negative correlation between them.