Many youngsters between the ages of 15-30 are suffering from limited

Hey,can anyone explain why C is not the correct answer as there in flaw in variables considered.
please help!

Hi ssriva2!
I think that C is not correct for the following reason. C states that argument "uses a coincidence to establish a causal relationship between two unrelated variables". C doesn't establishes a causal relationship. It just says that people who suffer from limited span attention are interrupted by their mobile phones. And then argument makes a converse relation that if a person is interrupted by mobile beep then this person suffers from limited span attention. But this is not necessarily true. For example, Robert can attend his mobile every ten minutes because he is using it as a clocks=)).

A.Fails to consider that there might be other causes for youngsters developing limited attention span disorder.
OOS ' we dont care about other causes
B.Does not take into account the probability that Robert might be among the 20% of the people who are not interrupted by their mobile phones once every 15 minutes - doesnt affect the argument in any manner if we read the option ;
C.Uses a coincidence to establish a causal relationship between two unrelated variables - there is no coincidence stated here ; what is given is pure facts
D.It assumes the converse of the relationship it established by the study to be true - Possible answer .
E.Takes a very myopic view of limited attention span. - clearly OOS ;

SO D WINS

Hi all..!!

M I missing something. Where is the question stem btw?

JackH Kudos added for pointing out. ( I have edited the post)

Here is my explanation for this problem -

15- 30 years

Ringing/beeping of phones evry 10 min ---> attention span disorder ( Cause -->Effect)

Robert, 24 years

Attention span disorder -----> attends mobile every five minutes. ( Effect -->Cause )


Hence IMHO with the OA (B)

Many youngsters between the ages of 15-30 are suffering from limited attention span. A recent study has shown that 80% of these youngsters who have this disorder are interrupted by, the ringing or beeping of their mobile phones, once every in ten minutes. In all likelihood Robert, aged 24, has the limited attention span disorder because he attends to his mobile once every five minutes.

Understand :
many 15-30 ppl d= LAS
80% of these (who have LAS) = interrupted by MPs
R= attends phone (Cause) --> LAS(effect)

Find the logical flaw in the argument.

Think : the study tells us that LAS ppl are interrupted by MPs... but are they interrupted BECASUE of LAS ...we dont know !! The study only puts forth 2 events...but nowhere a causal relationship is mentioned !!
The conclusion : attention to Mobile= LAS is unwarranted becasue we are just giving two events wihout any relationship.

A.Fails to consider that there might be other causes for youngsters developing limited attention span disorder.
- possible

B.Does not take into account the probability that Robert might be among the 20% of the people who are not interrupted by their mobile phones once every 15 minutes
- irrelevant

C.Uses a coincidence to establish a causal relationship between two unrelated variables
- possible (unrelated variables is kinda throw off)

D.It assumes the converse of the relationship it established by the study to be true
- study does not establish any reltionship

E.Takes a very myopic view of limited attention span.
- no myopic view here

I am confused between A and C ... VeritasKarishma VeritasPrepBrian ScottTargetTestPrep jennpt generis GMATNinja chetan2u

As is often the case with arguments from unknown sources - they are not great. The last sentence in the argument is ambiguous but I arrived at one meaning because option (D) went perfectly with it.

What does this mean:
In all likelihood Robert, aged 24, has the limited attention span disorder because he attends to his mobile once every five minutes.
- Does it mean to say that Robert attends to his phone every 5 mins so it is likely he has LAS?
- or does it mean to say it is likely that Robert's cause of LAS is his attending to his phone every 5 mins?

Many youngsters 15-30 are suffering from LAS.
80% of these who suffer from LAS are interrupted by their mobile phones once every ten minutes. (LAS is the cause - being interrupted by mobile is the effect. They keep looking at the phone every few mins because they have LAS)

If I assume the first meaning "Robert attends to his phone every 5 mins so it is likely he has LAS", then option (D) works perfectly. The study establishes LAS as the cause and getting interrupted by phone as the effect.
Robert attends to his phone and hence must have LAS does just the opposite. Attending to the phone is the cause and having LAS is the effect.

A.Fails to consider that there might be other causes for youngsters developing limited attention span disorder.

The study does not talk about the reason for LAS. The argument says that Robert attends to his phone very frequently so he may have LAS. It doesn't say that LAS cannot happen because of another reason. Even if we consider meaning 2 above that mobile phone is the reason for Robert's LAS, note that the argument says that it is likely. It is does not say that there can be no other causes.

B.Does not take into account the probability that Robert might be among the 20% of the people who are not interrupted by their mobile phones once every 15 minutes
We know Robert attends to his phone every 5 mins.

C.Uses a coincidence to establish a causal relationship between two unrelated variables
We don't know whether LAS and mobile phone are unrelated variables.

D.It assumes the converse of the relationship it established by the study to be true
Correct as discussed above.

E.Takes a very myopic view of limited attention span.
Irrelevant

Answer (D)

Hi AdityaHongunti

Frankly, this question is not worth your time and energy. It is written poorly enough that we cannot tell whether attending to one's phone is a cause of LASD or a symptom of already having LASD. (Do people look at their phones frequently because the phones beep/ding and thus distract them, and this repeated distraction eventually causes LASD? Or do people look at their phones frequently because LASD drives them to do this behavior? We can't tell.)

If you've exhausted all GMAT OG questions, I would consider Manhattan Prep and Veritas Prep questions as generally trustworthy, as well as official practice questions from the GRE (critical reasoning-style questions only), and as a last resort, the LSAT.
These other anonymous sources may do you more harm than good, wasting your time and confusing your process.

Onward and upward!

As is often the case with arguments from unknown sources - they are not great. The last sentence in the argument is ambiguous but I arrived at one meaning because option (D) went perfectly with it.

What does this mean:
In all likelihood Robert, aged 24, has the limited attention span disorder because he attends to his mobile once every five minutes.
- Does it mean to say that Robert attends to his phone every 5 mins so it is likely he has LAS?
- or does it mean to say it is likely that Robert's cause of LAS is his attending to his phone every 5 mins?

Many youngsters 15-30 are suffering from LAS.
80% of these who suffer from LAS are interrupted by their mobile phones once every ten minutes.
(LAS is the cause - being interrupted by mobile is the effect. They keep looking at the phone every few mins because they have LAS).

Acc to me, This is supposed to be a conditional statement. Rephrasing this statement would be "If people suffer from LAS ( sufficient ) , then they are interrupted by their mobile phones once every 10 minutes ( necessary) ". Am i wrong ? if so , why ?

Conclusion pf the stimulus: In all likelihood Robert, aged 24, has the limited attention span disorder because he attends to his mobile once every five minutes.

Acc to me, the author has used the necessary statement to be the cause and the sufficient statement to be the effect of the cause. Is this correct ?

From the above analysis , I concluded this to be a case where conditional statement in the premise has been used to support a causal statement in the conclusion.

From the available option i thought C to be the best one even though i do agree that the word 2 unrelated variable is awkward.

VeritasKarishma

You are yourself saying that the two variables are related. Then how can (C) be correct? It says that the two variables are unrelated. For us to say this, we need to know that the variables are unrelated. That we do not.

The way you interpreted the conclusion, (D) is the obvious choice.

"Acc to me, This is supposed to be a conditional statement. Rephrasing this statement would be "If people suffer from LAS ( sufficient ) , then they are interrupted by their mobile phones once every 10 minutes ( necessary) ". Am i wrong ? if so , why ?

Conclusion pf the stimulus: In all likelihood Robert, aged 24, has the limited attention span disorder because he attends to his mobile once every five minutes."

First statement means LAS is the cause of checking phone.
Second statement means Mobile is the cause of LAS.

So assumes the converse of what the study establishes.

Acc to me, This is supposed to be a conditional statement. Rephrasing this statement would be "If people suffer from LAS ( sufficient ) , then they are interrupted by their mobile phones once every 10 minutes ( necessary) ".

First statement means LAS is the cause of checking phone.

But does a conditional statement i.e ' If LAS , then interrupted by mobile' mean LAS is the cause of interruption by mobile ?

We have been asked specifically not to do this mistake. i.e assume a conditional to be causation.

VeritasKarishma

Yes, condition needn't be a cause necessarily but it may be. Whether there is causation depends on the context.

If one has social anxiety, one stays at home.

Can I say that social anxiety causes one to stay at home? Sure. It is reasonable. The relation may be indirect - social anxiety causes X and X causes one to stay at home type.

This is similar to "cause-effect" concept of CR

X causes Y
X = limited attention span
Y = distracted by the ringing or beeping of their mobile phones

The sentence " youngsters who have this disorder are interrupted by " implies X causes Y

and the conclusion Supports Y causes X phenomena, which is wrong

So answer D