Re: Group 11 Question 54: The use of a device designed to improve...
[#permalink]
20 Jan 2021, 16:04
Official Explanation:
The use of a device designed to improve hand-to-eye coordination involves an individual watching a screen and then quickly deciding to either touch or not touch a specific area on the screen depending on the color and sequence of flashing lights. Initial tests of the device have been quite positive. By using the device, professional athletes should experience significant performance gains after only two or three 20-minute training sessions with the device.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) The biggest gains in hand-to-eye coordination have been seen in athletes using the device for at least three weeks, five days a week.
(B) The device is effective for individuals at all levels of skill.
(C) The cost of the device makes it unaffordable to nearly all non-professional sports organizations.
(D) A similar device that involves hand and foot movements has been shown to be more effective.
(E) The device is no more effective than other traditional forms of training that professional athletes undergo regularly.
Question Type: Strengthen
Boil It Down: We have a new device for improving hand-to-eye coordination. Initial tests prove promising. Supposedly, professional athletes using the device should experience significant performance gains after only two or three short sessions.
Missing Information: This is a strengthen-the-argument question, which means it is part of the assumption family. As with any assumption family question, we want to break it down.
Evidence: The initial tests of the device are positive
Assumption: ??
Conclusion: Professional athletes will have significant improvements after only two or three 20-minute sessions.
Goal: Find the option that best strengthens the argument about professional athletes using hand-to-eye coordination devices.
Analysis:
To find our correct option, we want a sentence that we could plug into our assumption row which would make the conclusion airtight. Imagine every answer choice as an assumption, that, if true, would make the conclusion more likely to be true. As always, we want to make a prediction. My prediction is that “Every single hand-eye coordination device which had positive initial tests resulted in significant increases in performance, and there is no reason to suggest that this device will not follow that trend.” If that’s true, does it seem more likely that the initial tests are indicative of subsequent performance increases? I think yes.
(You can skip this paragraph if you understand predictions well, if not this may be helpful).
Some students struggle at first with predictions. Some of you may be asking how I came up with my previous prediction. Here are the steps I follow every time. First, I break down assumption family questions into evidence/assumption/conclusion like above. Then I plug them in, and I scrutinize the conclusion. Based only on my own personal knowledge, I tell every prompt: “I don’t believe you” and then think about why. Because every prompt has flawed reasoning, some are just harder to realize than others. Here, for example, the prompt’s only evidence of this device causing significant increases in performance is that the initial tests are positive. Ask yourself, do initial tests being positive mean that – 100% – the full-time release will significantly increase performance? No. In real life, how often does something have great initial testing only to completely fail? Segway’s were supposed to revolutionize the way we get around and now they are relegated to being a gag for semi-watchable mall cop movies. So for me, when the conclusion said it will work only because the initial tests were good, I took issue with that. My prediction then, is something which makes the conclusion more likely to be true. That is how I make my predictions. Don’t be discouraged early on if you have difficulties, it is a skill – like all things on a standardized test – which is easily learnable with time and effort.
(A) The biggest gains in hand-to-eye coordination have been seen in athletes using the device for at least three weeks, five days a week.
This answer choice goes too far. We want to strengthen our conclusion: that using this device after only two or three 20-minute practice sessions will cause significant increase in performance for professional athletes. This answer choice is talking about using the device for at least 3-weeks, 5-days a week. I wouldn’t go so far as to say this weakens the argument, but does it help? Frankly, we don’t care if it works better when you use it longer and more frequently. We only care about short-term use.
(B) The device is effective for individuals at all levels of skill.
I’ll admit, I was not in love with this answer at first. I don’t love this answer, but it’s arguable and there is no other option that is as good as this one.
Let’s plug it in first:
Evidence: The initial tests of the device are positive
Assumption: The device is effective for individuals at all levels of skill.
Conclusion: Professional athletes will have significant improvements after only two or three 20-minute sessions.
Here, our answer choice strengthens the conclusion because the answer choice encompasses all people. The device works for all skill levels professional athletes are encompassed in ‘all skill levels’ our conclusion is strengthened. It is an attenuated conclusion for sure, but this is what makes difficult questions difficult. Remember, getting rid of wrong answers is just as useful a skill as choosing the right one. Even if you couldn’t say for sure why this is right, you could still get this answer by saying why all the others are clearly wrong.
(C) The cost of the device makes it unaffordable to nearly all non-professional sports organizations.
We don’t care about cost. We only care about increasing performance. Moreover, our conclusion is focused on professional athletes. The conclusion simply does not matter if no one except professional athletes can afford it.
(D) A similar device that involves hand and foot movements has been shown to be more effective.
This is a classic fallacy. Just because something else can do it better does not mean ours isn’t effective. Our only concern is that this device can significantly increase performance when used. What some other device can do is of no concern. If I say: “My Volvo can reach speeds of up to 100mph!” and you respond by saying “Yea, well my Corvette can go up to 150,” you haven’t proven me right or wrong. It is irrelevant to compare in this situation.
(E) The device is no more effective than other traditional forms of training that professional athletes undergo regularly.
Again, a classic answer choice we just don’t care about. It doesn’t matter if other things can increase performance just as effectively; our conclusion only states that this device can increase performance. Plus, it ignores the crucial element of timing. Our device can increase performance in 2 or 3 20-minute sessions. What if the only forms of training, which are just as effective, take 6-months for the same results? Both have the same outcome, but one is clearly more beneficial than the other.
Don’t study for the GMAT. Train for it.
close
35%
(medium)
33%
(01:53)
wrong 
