Studies show that children who listen too much classic music are more

Replying to a Pvt about this question

Sorry if I didnt fully explain in my previous post the reasons why A is correct and the others one do not

As such, when i said must VS hypothesis in the sense that the right choice do not mimic exactly what the stimulus tries to convey.

In the stimulus we do have something that COULD be true.

In A we do have a flaw because the question does not take in account other reasons why a person could be silent when adult. Could be the music or else.

IN the other options instead we do have clearly no alternative causes

Look at C

3) Studies show that fat people live shorter lives, on average, than thin people do. Tom is a fat man and therefore might be expected to live a shorter life than Peter, who is a thin man.

This kind of statistic is definitely true. All we know.

However, I didnt find a reliable source of this question. Yet, considering the OG question on mimic the argument this one is really not properly formulated.

I think is better to leave it behind and do not spend too much time on this one.

I am here for further discussions.

Regards

Guyz, this does not seem to be a very good post.

Option A is clearly incomplete! It doesnt have a 'logical' structure at all!

And, what is the last line "People who like Dogs.." doing there? Is that an option too? Becuase that is, at least complete.

Now, it only gets a logical structure when we combine A and B together. This, i think, should be option A:
"1) The shoes store in the city sold twice as many shoes as the shoes store in the countryside did last week, and a Today paper advertisement has been shown to increase the number of shoes sold. The shoes store in the city must have had a bigger advertisement in the Today paper than the shoes store in the countryside. "

But, still A isn't the correct answer.

To me, the last (un-numbered) option makes more sense.

But anyways, i request the poster to either clarify or remove/edit this post.

[you-tube][/you-tube]

Let me assist. Everything is wonderful with this question except one thing. It beats me that no one has pointed it out. CR is a logic not a creed.
The answer is not B C D or E.
Because they didnt even copy the logic pattern.
A as well did NOT parallel the logic pattern. It would have paralleled the logic pattern had it said, Studies show that shoe storeswith bigger ads in Today papers sell more than shoe stores with smaller ads in Today papers. The shoes store in the city sold more than shoe stores in the country side. Therefore. The shoes store in the city must have had a bigger advertisement in the Today paper than the shoes store in the countryside.

But the question asked, Which of the following most closely parallels the logical structure above?.
Now there are options from B through E that more closely copied the logic than the other.
We do not know if A copied the logic more than the other since A is not an argument. It has no premise.
We dont know what the heck led to the conclusion in A. It could be worse than the other options or better than them
So factually A as it stands in that argument CANNOT be the answer.
The other options like B seems to be part of A but got truncated by a typo.
Please jettison this question.

Here is a way I derived the answer A (after wrongly chose B) - I think it's just for my understanding, not sure if with this approach I will consume much more time or not during the real exam.

(The bracket indicate negate. e.g X, (X) = not X)



Please discuss more.

Thanks,
HL

I'll try and explain my reasoning for this question, I hope I can help explain why A is correct and the rest are not.

Studies show that children who listen too much classic music are more likely than others to become silent adults. Shawn, who is a silent adult, must have listened more classic music as a child than I did, since I am not silent.
Breakdown:
Premise:Children -> Listen too much classical music -> Become Silent Adults
Conclusion:
Shawn is silent <- Listened to more Classical than I
I am not silent <- Listened to less classical than Shawn

Which of the following most closely parallels the logical structure above?


1) The shoes store in the city must have had a bigger advertisement in the Today paper than the shoes store in the countryside. The shoes store in the city sold twice as many shoes as the shoes store in the countryside did last week, and a Today paper advertisement has been shown to increase the number of shoes sold.
City Store sold more shoes<- Posted Bigger Ad than Country store
Country store sold less shoes <- Poster smaller Ad than City store
Any store -> Puts Ads -> Increases Sales.
{Correct}
Hope you can see the correct logic here

2) Studies show that fat people live shorter lives, on average, than thin people do. Tom is a fat man and therefore might be expected to live a shorter life than Peter, who is a thin man.
Conclusion is made the premise here and a new conclusion is asserted.{Wrong}

3) The mayor stated that all meetings would be canceled for the day if rainfall last night were greater than five inches. Therefore, since the rainfall was only four inches, we must be attending the meeting today.
This is a straightforward logical statement, but is not the same as the question. {Wrong}

4) According to research, people with unusual math talent do not achieve their true potential unless they are given formal lessons. Therefore Jeff, who has achieved his full math potential without formal lessons must not have unusual math talent.
There is no comparison between Jeff and another person, therefore the reasoning isn't similar to the question stem. {Wrong}

5)People who like dogs also like cats. Karen does not like cats, so she must not like dogs either.
Similar to option D, Karen's preference isnt compared to another person. This is again different than the question stem, ergo: {Wrong}

Does my explanation make sense?

I don't get all right but got this one correct. Let me put my thought process.

Logic:
Children + Too Much Classic Music, More Like than others (comparison) to become silent adults.
Shaun - SA, must have listened more than me, as I am not.

if A does X, A is more likely than B to become Z.
A is Z NOW, so A did X MORE than B did.


1) The shoes store in the city must have had a bigger advertisement in the Today paper than the shoes store in the countryside. The shoes store in the city sold twice as many shoes as the shoes store in the countryside did last week, and a Today paper advertisement has been shown to increase the number of shoes sold.

A=Shoe Store City, Y - Countryside Shoe Store. X - Advertising in Today Paper.

Doing X Increases Sales. (statement 3 in Option A) - Premise 1
A sold > than Y sold. (statement 2 in Option A) - Premise 2 (comparison)
A must have done more X, Y did less X. (statement 1 in Option A) - Conclusion
Premise and Conclusion can be anywhere.

2) Studies show that fat people live shorter lives, on average, than thin people do. Tom is a fat man and therefore might be expected to live a shorter life than Peter, who is a thin man.

Talks of possible future. What has already happened will be logical with Stimulus.

3) The mayor stated that all meetings would be canceled for the day if rainfall last night were greater than five inches. Therefore, since the rainfall was only four inches, we must be attending the meeting today.

-If A, then B. A did not happen => Opposite of B happens.
wrt to Stimular, doesn't have comparison. Simply Conditional Statement with 2 choices. not parallel.

4) According to research, people with unusual math talent do not achieve their true potential unless they are given formal lessons. Therefore Jeff, who has achieved his full math potential without formal lessons must not have unusual math talent.
-No Comparison.

5)People who like dogs also like cats. Karen does not like cats, so she must not like dogs either.
No Comparison with anyone. It's only about Karen. Stimulus is about, based on something one does more or does less, two people/objects/stores/institution etc become/achieve something.

Though it might be difficult to Interpret A properly. And I might not have been able to explain so well, but A seemed most logical to me.

We need to clearly define the logical structure.

The structure is that X (listening music) cause Y(silent), Y is found, thus Y must be because of X.

Breaking the sentence down, we can say there are
1. X cause Y
2. Y is found
3. Y must be because of X

Let's look at (A)
1. X cause Y : Today paper advertisement (X) has been shown to increase the number (Y) of shoes sold
2. Y is found : shoes store in the city sold twice (Y = sales of shoes)
3. Y must be because of X : The shoes store in the city must have had a bigger advertisement.

Even the sequence is changed, the elements are all fit, hence correct!

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.