Last visit was: 13 May 2024, 19:44 It is currently 13 May 2024, 19:44

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Difficulty: 655-705 Levelx   Weakenx                           
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 19 Jul 2022
Posts: 430
Own Kudos [?]: 507 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 19 Jul 2022
Posts: 430
Own Kudos [?]: 507 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 25 Apr 2022
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V40
GPA: 3.38
Send PM
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14891
Own Kudos [?]: 65269 [1]
Given Kudos: 431
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
arjun221199 wrote:
KarishmaB wrote:
Let me add here that (E), if anything, is a strengthener. It definitely doesn't weaken the argument.

Let's put it in simple terms:

Say I tell you:
People believe that solving Math maintains mental sharpness. But actually social interaction is enough. A study showed that people with more social activity have better mental skills.

Now, A says, " Mental skills were measured by checking language skills."
and B says, "Mental skills were measured by checking Math skills."

- who is strengthening my argument and who is weakening it?

A is weakening my argument since if mental skills were measured by language skills, obviously people with more social activity will report higher skills. It doesn't need to imply that social interactions lead to sharper mental skills. If all you are going to check is how well people can interact, the study will show that social people will have higher mental skills.

B strengthens my argument that social activity actually increases even the quantitative ability - which is probably one of the measures of mental skills. Hence, it does make my argument stronger that social activity is enough to improve mental skills - no matter how you measure mental skills.

Option (E) says what B says in my example. Hence it is not a weakener; it is, perhaps, a wee bit of a strengthener.



karishma Can you please explain this relation how does B strengthen...... then in the same way A must also right...



I am assuming that you are discussing the A and B given in my example above.

People believe that solving MATH maintains MENTAL sharpness.
But actually SOCIAL interaction is enough to maintain MENTAL sharpness.
A study showed that people with more SOCIAL activity have better MENTAL skills.

So the argument says that people believe that one needs to work on MATH to maintain MENTAL sharpness but actually just some social interaction is enough to maintain MENTAL sharpness. You don't really have to do MATH to keep your mind sharp. A study showed that people who have more social activity have better mental skills.

Now here is the thing - what will better support the result from the study?
If the study tested people's MATH skills or LANGUAGE skills to test their mental skills? (Say to test how smart you are, did it test you on Quant or Verbal?)

The point is what do you call "smart?" Who are the smart people?

Say the study had measured people's LANGUAGE skills to test their mental skills and found that those with more SOCIAL activity had better LANGUAGE skills. Well, that's kind of expected, right? If you will measure mental skills on the basis of how good a person's language is, better social activity will obviously lead to better language skills and hence a higher score in the mental skills test. So it doesn't make a strong case for our argument. that social activity is enough.

But if the study tested MATH skills to decide whether the person has good mental skills, then it seems that social activity does support better mental skills. Social activity will anyway lead to better language skills but it leads to better Math skills too. Then our argument is supported.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 29 Aug 2022
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 191
Location: India
Send PM
Re: It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
I’ll explain in very simple words how B weakens?

So, argument says : Social interaction is leading to a good mental heath.
Option B say : Mentally ill person do not socialise. So, we can say a mentally sound person socialises.

He is socialising because he is mentally healthy. But that doesn’t mean he is mentally healthy because he is socialising. You get this?
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1367
Own Kudos [?]: 209 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
Hi avigutman – per my understanding

Quote:
Evidence: more of X is seen with more of Y.
Conclusion – X is the cause of Y

In order to weaken -
  • (i) Z is the cause for (more of X) and (more of Y)



Question -

In terms of a third factor (z), can I also weaken by saying ?

  • (II) Z is the cause for (LESS of X) and (LESS of Y)


Is (II) really the same thing as saying (I) ? I personally didnt think so

--------------------------
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1301
Own Kudos [?]: 2236 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Send PM
Re: It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
In terms of a third factor (z), can I also weaken by saying ?

  • (II) Z is the cause for (LESS of X) and (LESS of Y)


Is (II) really the same thing as saying (I) ? I personally didnt think so

Does this mean that you disagree with Ron's response from six months ago, jabhatta2?
RonTargetTestPrep wrote:
If you think about these two statements for a sec...
An increase in thing #1 is correlated with an increase in thing #2.
A decrease in thing #1 is correlated with a decrease in thing #2.
...I think you'll realize pretty quickly that they're exactly the same statement.

If that's not immediately clear, just make up as many real-life examples as necessary until it is.
e.g.,
Workers with more years of experience are generally paid more.
is exactly the same statement as
Workers with fewer years of experience are generally paid less.
If so, what exactly isn't clicking for you in his response?
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1367
Own Kudos [?]: 209 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
Hi avigutman

Ron is no longer on the platform so I couldn’t follow up with him directly ☹

avigutman wrote:
RonTargetTestPrep wrote:
If you think about these two statements for a sec...
(I) An increase in thing #1 is correlated with an increase in thing #2.
(II) A decrease in thing #1 is correlated with a decrease in thing #2.

...I think you'll realize pretty quickly that they're exactly the same statement.
If so, what exactly isn't clicking for you in his response?


So, I think the two statements in the blue are inferential.

If evidence / a study is saying statement 1 above (Blue) – the evidence / study implies – statement 2 (Blue above)

Fair enough

---------------------------------------

My question was in the world of weakeners however

This is considered a weakener
(I) Z is the cause for (more A) and (more B) to be seen together

[JD - I agree]

I don’t think it makes sense to say this is a weakener however
(II) Z is the cause for (less A) and (less B)

So Z is responsible for (less A) and (less B)

How does that prove that (A) and (B) are correlated because of some third factor
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1301
Own Kudos [?]: 2236 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Send PM
Re: It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
RonTargetTestPrep wrote:
If you think about these two statements for a sec...
(I) An increase in thing #1 is correlated with an increase in thing #2.
(II) A decrease in thing #1 is correlated with a decrease in thing #2.

...I think you'll realize pretty quickly that they're exactly the same statement.


So, I think the two statements in the blue are inferential.

If evidence / a study is saying statement 1 above (Blue) – the evidence / study implies – statement 2 (Blue above)

Fair enough

---------------------------------------

My question was in the world of weakeners however

This is considered a weakener
(I) Z is the cause for (more A) and (more B) to be seen together

[JD - I agree]

I don’t think it makes sense to say this is a weakener however
(II) Z is the cause for (less A) and (less B)

So Z is responsible for (less A) and (less B)
If you agree that the two statements are equivalent (they're both describing the same correlation), how can you claim that one's a weakener and one isn't? That would imply that they're not equivalent, jabhatta2... Either you think the two statements are saying the same thing, or you don't. Which is it?

jabhatta2 wrote:
How does that prove that (A) and (B) are correlated because of some third factor
It doesn't prove anything, nor does it need to. It merely suggests an alternative explanation for the observed phenomenon (a correlation between A and B).
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1367
Own Kudos [?]: 209 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
Hi avigutman - when it comes to the third factor / unknown variable - i.e. in this case z

In order for z to be a weakener – I thought z itself had to be positively corelated with [more of x] and z should be positive correlated with [more of Y]

I didn’t think it made sense to weaken by saying :

Z is correlated with [less of X] and Z is correlated with [less of Y]

Let me explain

Quote:
Evidence: there is a positive correlation between [more frost bite cases] and [higher number of sledging accidents]
Conclusion – [frost bites] must be causing [sledging accidents]

Weakener –
Cold weather [z] is the cause of both [more frost bite cases] and [higher number of sledging accidents]


Can I really weaken the argument, this way?

Hot weather [z'] is the cause of both [fewer frost bite cases] and [fewer number of sledging accidents]

Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 09 Feb 2023, 10:42.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 09 Feb 2023, 10:52, edited 4 times in total.
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1367
Own Kudos [?]: 209 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1301
Own Kudos [?]: 2236 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Send PM
Re: It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
Let me explain

Quote:
Evidence: there is a positive correlation between [more frost bite cases] and [higher number of sledging accidents]
Conclusion – [frost bites] must be causing [sledging accidents]

Weakener –
Cold weather [z] is the cause of both [more frost bite cases] and [higher number of sledging accidents]


Can I really weaken the argument, this way?

Hot weather [z'] is the cause of both [fewer frost bite cases] and [fewer number of sledging accidents]
Absolutely, jabhatta2!
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1367
Own Kudos [?]: 209 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
avigutman wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
Let me explain

Quote:
Evidence: there is a positive correlation between [more frost bite cases] and [higher number of sledging accidents]
Conclusion – [frost bites] must be causing [sledging accidents]

Weakener –
Cold weather [z] is the cause of both [more frost bite cases] and [higher number of sledging accidents


Can I really weaken the argument, this way?

Hot weather [z'] is the cause of both [fewer frost bite cases] and [fewer number of sledging accidents]


Absolutely, jabhatta2!


Hi Avi – I can see why – the first in the blue is a weakener but not the second (in the pink)

I am not sure how to explain why 😊

Maybe because – the blue is affirmative whereas the the pink is negative in nature and the conclusion of the argument is based on an affirmative premise

Here is what I mean :

Quote:
Wherever Avi is not seen, JD too is not seen. Wherever Avi is seen, JD is seen.
Conclusion - JD must be stalking Avi.

(Weakener 1) [GMAT] is the reason why JD keeps being around Avi, so JD can ask questions to Avi.
(Weakener 2) [COVID] is the reason why JD and Avi are never seen


(#1) is a clear weakener

(#2) as a weakener is not intuitive for me

Reason - because the conclusion (JD must be stalking Avi) is made because of affirmative premise "Wherever Avi is seen, JD is seen"

No one can conclude JD must be stalking Avi. based on the negative version of the premise "Wherever Avi is NOT seen, JD is NOT seen"

I think thats why.
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1301
Own Kudos [?]: 2236 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Send PM
Re: It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
Quote:
Evidence: there is a positive correlation between [more frost bite cases] and [higher number of sledging accidents]
Conclusion – [frost bites] must be causing [sledging accidents]

Weakener –
Cold weather [z] is the cause of both [more frost bite cases] and [higher number of sledging accidents


Can I really weaken the argument, this way?

Hot weather [z'] is the cause of both [fewer frost bite cases] and [fewer number of sledging accidents]

Hi Avi – I can see why – the first in the blue is a weakener but not the second (in the pink)

I am not sure how to explain why 😊

Maybe because – the blue is affirmative whereas the the pink is negative in nature and the conclusion of the argument is based on an affirmative premise

Here is what I mean :

Quote:
Wherever Avi is not seen, JD too is not seen. Wherever Avi is seen, JD is seen.
Conclusion - JD must be stalking Avi.

(Weakener 1) [GMAT] is the reason why JD keeps being around Avi, so JD can ask questions to Avi.
(Weakener 2) [COVID] is the reason why JD and Avi are never seen


(#1) is a clear weakener

(#2) as a weakener is not intuitive for me

Reason - because the conclusion (JD must be stalking Avi) is made because of affirmative premise "Wherever Avi is seen, JD is seen"

No one can conclude JD must be stalking Avi. based on the negative version of the premise "Wherever Avi is NOT seen, JD is NOT seen"

Agreed, jabhatta2. But, as Ron said earlier, these are binary true/false statements such as X = "I am male" (where not-X = "I am female") so they can't have statistical correlations, because there are no increments between male and female, or between true and false.
Perhaps you're just not appreciating the difference between binary situations and scales.
These two statements mean the exact same thing, because mental sharpness and social isolation are measured on scales:
(i) treatments that adversely affect a person's mental sharpness also tend to increase that person's social isolation.
(ii) a study showing that the more social contact people report, the better their mental skills.
If mental sharpness were a binary condition and social isolation were a binary condition, you'd be correct, jabhatta2.
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1367
Own Kudos [?]: 209 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
avigutman wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
Quote:
Wherever Avi is not seen, JD too is not seen. Wherever Avi is seen, JD is seen.
Conclusion - JD must be stalking Avi.

(Weakener 1) [GMAT] is the reason why JD keeps being around Avi, so JD can ask questions to Avi.
(Weakener 2) [COVID] is the reason why JD and Avi are NOT seen together


(#1) is a clear weakener

(#2) as a weakener is not intuitive for me


Agreed


Hi avigutman – just confirming, you don’t see (weakener #2 above – yellow highlight above) as a weakener too right? Just confirming

avigutman wrote:
Agreed, jabhatta2. But, as Ron said earlier, these are binary true/false statements such as X = "I am male" (where not-X = "I am female") so they can't have statistical correlations, because there are no increments between male and female, or between true and false.
Perhaps you're just not appreciating the difference between binary situations and scales.
These two statements mean the exact same thing, because mental sharpness and social isolation are measured on scales:
(i) treatments that adversely affect a person's mental sharpness also tend to increase that person's social isolation.
(ii) a study showing that the more social contact people report, the better their mental skills.
If mental sharpness were a binary condition and social isolation were a binary condition, you'd be correct, jabhatta2.


Not sure - why is there a discussion on binary vs scale. Per my understanding - the analogy below is one of scale, not binaries

Wherever Avi is seen, JD is seen
Wherever Avi is NOT SEEN, JD is not SEEN



=== Scale (not binary)

OR is that wrong, rendering my analogy itself wrong to begin with ?

Quote:
Evidence : Wherever Avi is not seen, JD too is not seen. Wherever Avi is seen, JD is seen.
Conclusion - JD must be stalking Avi.

(Weakener 1) [GMAT] is the reason why JD keeps being around Avi, so JD can ask questions to Avi.
(Weakener 2) [COVID] is the reason why JD and Avi are never seen
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1301
Own Kudos [?]: 2236 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Send PM
Re: It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
Quote:
Wherever Avi is not seen, JD too is not seen. Wherever Avi is seen, JD is seen.
Conclusion - JD must be stalking Avi.

(Weakener 1) [GMAT] is the reason why JD keeps being around Avi, so JD can ask questions to Avi.
(Weakener 2) [COVID] is the reason why JD and Avi are NOT seen together
You don’t see (weakener #2 above – yellow highlight above) as a weakener too right? Just confirming
Correct, jabhatta2, it's not a weakener.

jabhatta2 wrote:
Not sure - why is there a discussion on binary vs scale. Per my understanding - the analogy below is one of scale, not binaries

Wherever Avi is seen, JD is seen
Wherever Avi is NOT SEEN, JD is not SEEN



=== Scale (not binary)

OR is that wrong, rendering my analogy itself wrong to begin with ?
Yeah, jabhatta2, that's wrong. In a scale, such as temperature, it can get warmer or cooler, but there can't be NO temperature. Your analogy describes a binary: seen vs not seen. That's not a scale.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Oct 2022
Posts: 8
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Send PM
Re: It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
The conclusion in the argument talks about having good social skills is sufficient to have mental sharpness. There may be other parameters which can boost or deteriorate the mental sharpness but the passage does not mention any of that.

As the question type is finding something which will weaken the conclusion, we need to find something which proves that the social skills are not the cause for having mental sharpness.

The answer in B tells Many medical conditions and treatments that adversely affect a person's mental sharpness also tend to increase that person's social isolation.
That means medical problem also affects mental sharpness but that does not mean that having social skill is not sufficient for mental sharpness.

I could pick answer B if there is no E. Option E tells that the study is based on identifying more on matheatical skilles than social conversation. Hence the study result can not effectively utilised to conclude the social skills are the cause of mental sharpness.

Please guide if I am wrong.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 29 Nov 2022
Posts: 30
Own Kudos [?]: 6 [0]
Given Kudos: 40
Location: United States
Send PM
Re: It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
X leads to Y
Conclusion: more social contact(x) leads to better mental skill(Y)
paraphased the conslusion: lack of social contact leads to effect the metal skill or reduces the metal skill.

what option b say that
effect the mental skill(Y) leads to social isolation ( means lack of social contact)(x)

that means it not x cause the Y.
actually , the Y causes the X. this is reversed effect that why option b is the correct answer.

can anyone GMAT Wizard shed some light on my argument. I am more happy to receive your feedback than appreciation.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6927
Own Kudos [?]: 63873 [1]
Given Kudos: 1782
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
S1ny1s wrote:
X leads to Y

Conclusion: more social contact(x) leads to better mental skill(Y)

paraphased the conslusion: lack of social contact leads to effect the metal skill or reduces the metal skill.

what option b say that

effect the mental skill(Y) leads to social isolation ( means lack of social contact)(x)

that means it not x cause the Y.

actually , the Y causes the X. this is reversed effect that why option b is the correct answer.

can anyone GMAT Wizard shed some light on my argument. I am more happy to receive your feedback than appreciation.

Your overall reasoning is strong! However, it's simpler and more accurate to work through the passage without paraphrasing. The author's conclusion that "simply talking to other people suffices to maintain mental sharpness" is VERY different than your paraphrased version: "lack of social contact leads to effect the mental skill or reduces the mental skill."

The reason why these are different is that you're assuming that the ONLY way to maintain mental skills is through social contact. The author never says that. In fact, he/she doesn't disagree that solving crossword puzzles or mathematics problems works -- he/she just doesn't think these things are necessary. So, the author likely would NOT agree with your paraphrase that lack of social contact reduces mental skills.

The good news is that this paraphrase isn't necessary to the rest of your analysis. As you've said, the information in (B) suggests that the author has their causation all wrong, which is why (B) weakens the force of the evidence in the argument.

I hope that helps!
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14891
Own Kudos [?]: 65269 [0]
Given Kudos: 431
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
Expert Reply
WillGetIt wrote:
It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activities such as solving crossword puzzles or mathematics problems in order to maintain mental sharpness as they age. In fact, however, simply talking to other people—that is, participating in social interaction, which engages many mental and perceptual skills—suffices. Evidence to this effect comes from a study showing that the more social contact people report, the better their mental skills.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the force of the evidence cited?


(A) As people grow older, they are often advised to keep exercising their physical and mental capacities in order to maintain or improve them.

(B) Many medical conditions and treatments that adversely affect a person's mental sharpness also tend to increase that person's social isolation.

(C) Many people are proficient both in social interactions and in solving mathematical problems.

(D) The study did not itself collect data but analyzed data bearing on the issue from prior studies.

(E) The tasks evaluating mental sharpness for which data were compiled by the study were more akin to mathematics problems than to conversation.


Similar Official Question : LINK

Staying Sharp

Step 1: Identify the Question

The word weakens in the question stem indicates that this is a Weaken the Argument question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

Assump: intell activities nec to stay sharp w/ aging

BUT: study shows + social contact → + mental skills

© social contact is enough to stay sharp

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

In a Weaken problem, the right answer will make the conclusion less likely to be correct. In this case, the right answer will suggest that social contact alone isn’t enough to maintain mental sharpness as one ages. It might suggest that the study’s conclusions were faulty, or that something else is needed in addition to social contact.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) This answer choice describes a suggestion that some people give to older people. The suggestion is based on a particular assumption: that older people need mental exercise in order to stay sharp. However, even though people buy into this assumption and even give advice based on it, it could still be incorrect. The well-meaning advisors could actually be basing their advice on incorrect information.

(B) CORRECT. The argument clams that social contact causes better mental skills. This might not actually be the case. If illness limits both social contact and mental acuity, then the study would be correct in noting that social contact is associated with better mental skills. However, it would be wrong to conclude that one causes the other, since a third factor—good health—actually causes both of them (i.e. healthy people are more likely to have strong mental sharpness and significant social interactions).

(C) This doesn’t weaken the link between social contact and mental sharpness. The answer choice doesn’t specify whether these proficient people are or aren’t mentally sharp. If they do maintain their mental sharpness, it could still be attributable to social contact, mental exercise, both, or neither. (Also, note that someone who is proficient in solving mathematical problems doesn’t necessarily solve math problems regularly.)

(D) This answer choice attacks the methods used by a study, rather than that study’s conclusions. Typically, as in this case, these answer choices are incorrect. The issue is that, only using the information in the argument and the answer choice, there’s no way to know whether studies that analyze data are less accurate than studies that collect original data. You may have personal beliefs about the matter, but the right answer to a Critical Reasoning problem will only ever use information found within the argument, with very few exceptions.

(E) The conclusion states that social contact improves mental skills. This could be true regardless of how mental skills are tested. Perhaps social contact improves performance on math problems.


Here is the video solution to this question: https://youtu.be/EhZ8FKkfy0k
GMAT Club Bot
Re: It is widely assumed that people need to engage in intellectual activi [#permalink]
   1   2   3   4   5   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6927 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne