On average, schools that provide an extra recess period each day durin

our arguement presents a thought that higher scores are due to recess periods..option A weakens the arguement by crashing that point..@ targetgmat please make sure that you reread your post for some typos before you submit it..i had a problem in understanding the information in the stimulus especially on this part(state aptitude tests that schools that do not provide such a recess period) regards chiccufrazer

Posted from my mobile device

Why cant it be C

Malthus already enjoys above average scores on the aptitude tests in question.

If Malthus is already at peak, you cant do much to increase the scores. Please help clarify why this is not better than A?

Hi surya

C: Malthus already enjoys above average scores on the aptitude tests in question.
C only says Malthus already enjoys above average scores. "Above average" does not mean "at peak". Assume average score is 3 in score scale 1-5. What if Malthus average score is 4 <== clearly, 4 is above average. But Malthus still wants its average score to improve more.
Hence, C does not weaken the conclusion.

A: Nearly all of the schools providing the extra unstructured recess period provided it to reward students for their performance on the aptitude tests.
A mentions that extra unstructured recess is not the cause, but the result of high score performance. By showing the reverse relationship is TRUE, A weaken the cause & effect conclusion.

Hop it helps.

Hi,

I am not ashamed to say that the more i do CR, the more i need to practice.
However, let me add my 2 cents.

PREMISE: Schools providing extra recess period each day during which children ago unstructured play ===> score higher on state aptitude tests than schools that do not provide such a recess period.

CONCLUSION: The test scores at Malthus Elementary would likely improve if the school adds a recess period of unstructured play.

PRE-THINKING:
1. The same trend will follow in future. i.e no obstruction will occur during implementation of the plan at Malthus Elementary.
2. Cause and effect: extra recess ===> higher state aptitude tests
3. The test score at Malthus Elementary school are representative to state aptitude test.( There is a difference in terms, maybe the test that Malthus Elementary have are internal tests)

CHOICES:
A) Nearly all of the schools providing the extra unstructured recess period provided it to reward students for their performance on the aptitude tests.

This weakens our assumption 2. This shows that until students score well they will not get extra unstructured recess period.
According to this option, the event will never occur. Because here, Effect Y occurs prior to Cause X, weakening the argument.

B) Schools that add an extra period of recess perform better than schools that merely switch from structured to unstructured recess.

The comparison b.w various schools makes no sense, it actually strengthens the argument that the plan will be effective.

C) Malthus already enjoys above average scores on the aptitude tests in question.

Malthus wants to improve the score. It already enjoys has no effect on the conclusion.We have to weaken the conclusion that something will obstruct it.

D) An extra recess period allows students less time to study for their aptitude tests.

This is the tricky part. The argument already states that children go for unstructured play, and this unstructured play somewhere helps them to score better.
So, this option does not weaken the fact that unstructured play helps to score better.

E) Malthus formerly had an extra period of recess.

Look at the word "formerly", the argument states that the extra recess is given on "daily basis".
Had the word "formerly" replaced with "daily", the argument would have weakened.

Therefore, i will go with A.

Thanks,
Jai
KUDOS if it HELPED..!!!

A states the reverse cause-effect. I saw that right away. However, it's still true that the reward itself is the cause, as an incentive for students to do well. So, answer choice A is more or less neutral.

C states that students are already above average. Yes, adding the recess may help cause students' grades to increase, but the increase would have a smaller possible range than if the students' grades were average or below average. In fact, I would argue that there are diminishing returns as grades are already high, which is a reasonable assumption.

D is interesting because it seems to state the opposite claim of what was given in the passage. For example, Given: A causes B. Answer choice (which you must accept as true): A causes -B. But, that isn't necessarily the case here. Even if students study less, they are still experiencing better grades. Perhaps they are performing better because they are more energized, there's higher morale, etc.

A is marginally better than C, because A has the possibility of countering the conclusion's cause-effect assumption; whereas, C has the minimum possibility of no change in the students' grades. Therefore, A.

this is a cause->effect type of question.
cause = extra recess period
effect = improved sores.

to weaken, we would need to provide evidence that:
1. recess period happened before the improvement of the scores
2. improved scores caused the extra recess period - students were given more free time because they already perform well
3. alternate cause.

A provides example for the second weakener. so A is the correct answer choice.

Thee focus in this question should be anything negative on unstructured recess period or improvement in score. Only choice A and C do that. But in C it is only said that switch to unstructured recess period is not as good as just an extra recess period but it may still be good. Choice A means the improvement is likely not because of unstructured recess period because the students were already good.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Solution: A

Begin this question as you would any Weaken question: locate the conclusion, negate it, and seek support for the negation. The negation here would be that Malthus might NOT benefit from an extra period, and while a number of answer choices raise that possibility, (A) does so most convincingly, stating that the extra period was not the cause of the increased scores but a reward FOR the increased scores – in other words, a benefit stemming from a result, not necessarily a cause.

Hello Experts,

Can anyone explain why E isnt correct? Below is my thought process

If M already had a extra recess but still didn't see higher score from students, then it is highly unlike that introducing the recess (again) will improve the students score

Rather M has to implement something else if it does want to increase the score of its students

Please let me know where I am going wrong

Thanks

On average, schools that provide an extra recess period each day during which children are allowed unstructured play score higher on state aptitude tests that schools that do not provide such a recess period. Therefore, the test scores at Malthus Elementary would likely improve if the school adds a recess period of unstructured play.

Type - weaken
Boil it down - If Malthus Elementary adds a recess period of unstructured play , then the test scores at ME is likely to improve

(A) Nearly all of the schools providing the extra unstructured recess period provided it to reward students for their performance on the aptitude tests.- Correct - Reverse cause

(B) Schools that add an extra period of recess perform better than schools that merely switch from structured to unstructured recess. - Irrelevant

(C) Malthus already enjoys above average scores on the aptitude tests in question. - Incorrect - it does not mean that scores can't still improve

(D) An extra recess period allows students less time to study for their aptitude tests. - Incorrect - quantity of study time is less , but what about quality

(E) Malthus formerly had an extra period of recess. - Irrelevant

Answer A

(A) Nearly all of the schools providing the extra unstructured recess period provided it to reward students for their performance on the aptitude tests.

The argument assumes that having a recess period causes the increase in performance.
(A) shatters this cause and effect relationship by saying that it is not the recess period that causes an increase in performance.

It is quite strange for me. Many questions have similar patterns, but some have higher difficulty level than other questions.

@



IF E had "daily basis" instead of "formerly", would you still go with A ?

Argument analysis:
Conclusion - If school provides an extra period in which the students are allowed unstructured play, then the scores will improve.
Here, it is important to pay attention to, "extra period in which students are allowed unstructured play". Hence, there are two conditions to be satisfied simultaneously - unstructured play + extra period. Either of one will not suffice.

Weaken - Argument that will support the case: Even if extra period of unstructured play is allowed --> scores will not improve.
Probable reasons
1. The school is already at the highest attainable score
2. The extra periods are not because of achieving high scores. In such a case, providing extra period will hamper the scores instead of improving the scores

(A) Nearly all of the schools providing the extra unstructured recess period provided it to reward students for their performance on the aptitude tests.
Exactly like the point 2 in probable reasons.

(B) Schools that add an extra period of recess perform better than schools that merely switch from structured to unstructured recess.
This is out of context

(C) Malthus already enjoys above average scores on the aptitude tests in question.
There could be a case, that there are number of schools that have really poor results in aptitude tests. Hence, even if Malthus enjoys an above average score, there is room for considerable improvement. Hence, does not weaken

(D) An extra recess period allows students less time to study for their aptitude tests.
This opposes the prove given for drawing the conclusion. Incorrect

(E) Malthus formerly had an extra period of recess.
Okay, if Malthus already had an extra period, then adding an extra period will not work. But as stated in the argument analysis, we require two conditions 0 extra period + unstructured play. Hence, this choice is insufficient to weaken the argument.

Correct answer: A

imo A

What if there is no causality..
. The negation here would be that Malthus might NOT benefit from an extra period, and while a number of answer choices raise that possibility,
(A) states that the extra period was not the cause of the increased scores but a reward FOR the increased scores –

On avg, extra recess each day ==> kids score higher (than those kids in schools who don't provide extra recess)
Conclusion: If Malthus Elementary provides extra recess ==> scores of students there will improve.

(A) Nearly all of the schools providing the extra unstructured recess period provided it to reward students for their performance on the aptitude tests.
= This implies that kids score higher ==> schools provide recess and NOT the opposite. CORRECT
(B) Schools that add an extra period of recess perform better than schools that merely switch from structured to unstructured recess. = Irrelevant
(C) Malthus already enjoys above average scores on the aptitude tests in question. = But the scores can still be improved.
(D) An extra recess period allows students less time to study for their aptitude tests. = But students may score more in less amt of study time.
(E) Malthus formerly had an extra period of recess. = We dont care.

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.