Of the ten professional tennis players who are generally considered th

Of the ten professional tennis players who are generally considered the greatest of all time, six had no brothers or sisters. However, only a small portion of the general population is made up of such “only children.” Clearly, if you are a professional tennis player, you have a better chance of being considered among the greatest if you are an only child.

Stimulus: stimulus states that 6 out of 10 players who professionally play tennis are single children. The chances of being a greatest tennis player is if you are only child.

Which one of the following, if true, would undermine the argument in the passage?


(A) Some great tennis players never play professionally. IMO A as some tennis players who are great do not play professional tennis never play professionally hence the number is not correct

(B) Ascribing “greatness” to tennis players is necessarily subjective. out of scope does not undermine the stimulus

(C) Among all professional tennis players, seven out of ten have no brothers or sisters. strengthens the stimulus by stating 7/10 are single children

(D) An only child tends to be better at individual sports than at team sports. strengthens the stimulus

(E) Parents who have only one child have more time to invest in the child’s tennis career than do other parents. strengthens the stimulus

IMO A

"greatness" is a matter of opinon so B

C, D, and E can be eliminated right away because they support the argument that's being made in the passage. That leaves us with A and B.

(A) says "some great players never play professionally". However, this is irrelevant because the passage states that "if you are a professional tennis player, you have a better chance of being considered among the greatest if you are an only child". It's discussing a phenomenon among pro tennis players specifically, not tennis players in general.

(B) undermines the argument because if greatness is subjective, this is not an objective cause/effect phenomenon. In my opinion, the correct answer is (B).

Hello,
Can someone please explain why C is the correct answer ?
Thank you,
Léa

Of the ten professional tennis players who are generally considered the greatest of all time, six had no brothers or sisters. However, only a small portion of the general population is made up of such “only children.” Clearly, if you are a professional tennis player, you have a better chance of being considered among the greatest if you are an only child.

Which one of the following, if true, would undermine the argument in the passage?


(A) Some great tennis players never play professionally.
- since we're talking about professional players who are considered greatest of all time, non-professionals who are considered great is an out of scope.

(B) Ascribing “greatness” to tennis players is necessarily subjective.
- out of scope. This kind of logic should only be considered if all other options are taken out.

(C) Among all professional tennis players, seven out of ten have no brothers or sisters.
-Cool answer.
if you are professional player, you have better chance of being considered among the greatest if you are only child. But 7 out of 10 players are single children anyways...? so you have less chance to be considered great.

(D) An only child tends to be better at individual sports than at team sports.
- strengthens, not weaken.

(E) Parents who have only one child have more time to invest in the child’s tennis career than do other parents.
- strengthens, not weakens

if you should read the passage again, it's easy C.
point is not whether you have better chance to become tennis player, but 'great tennis player'. D & E strengthens your odds of becoming maybe good tennis player.
C points out that 70% of tennis players are single child, so your odds of becoming great player out of 70% of tennis players is only weakened.

According to me the correct option is B. However, i note for some reason C has been stated as the right option. Please help understand

akanshasingh5194

To simplify lets take an example of 100 chocolate brands available..

Now among the top 10 brands, 6 are dark chocolate brands and 4 are other brands.

Consider this.. 70% of the chocolate brands are dark chocolates. The probability of dark chocolate brands to be in top brands is 6/70.. On the contrary probability of other brands to be in top brands would be 4/30.

As you can see 6/70 is smaller than 4/30.
Hence, if above is true, it would not be correct to say that if you are a dark chocolate brand, probability of becoming a top brand is higher.

However, if we say that 20% of the brands are dark chocolate.. this would strengthen the above conclusion.
Use same logic to understand the conclusion and correct answer choice.

Trust this helps

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.
_________________