Peoples television-viewing habits could be monitored by having televi

Question

People’s television-viewing habits could be monitored by having television sets, when on, send out low-level electromagnetic waves that are reflected back to the television sets. The reflected waves could then be analyzed to determine how many people are within the viewing area of the television sets. Critics fear adverse health effects of such a monitoring system, but a proponent responds, “The average dose of radiation is less than one chest x-ray. As they watch, viewers won’t feel a thing.”

Which of the following, if true, is the most direct criticism of the proponent’s response?

Which of the following, if true, is the most direct criticism of the proponent’s response?

A. The system cannot determine whether persons in the viewing area are paying attention to what is being broadcast.

B. It is possible to gather reasonably useful data on who is watching programs by having selected families keep diaries of television watching.

C. Some of those who would watch television sets with the monitoring device on are already ill with conditions that keep them at home.

D. Even recipients of large, harmful doses of radiation do not sense the radiation as it strikes the body.

E. Because it would invade privacy, acceptance of the monitoring device would have to be voluntary on the part of viewing families, and that restriction would skew the results.

Bunuel · Answer

Similar question to practice: https://gmatclub.com/forum/people-s-tel ... 60190.html

MartyMurray · Answer

People’s television-viewing habits could be monitored by having television sets, when on, send out low-level electromagnetic waves that are reflected back to the television sets. The reflected waves could then be analyzed to determine how many people are within the viewing area of the television sets. Critics fear adverse health effects of such a monitoring system, but a proponent responds, “The average dose of radiation is less than one chest x-ray. As they watch, viewers won’t feel a thing.”

Which of the following, if true, is the most direct criticism of the proponent’s response?

Which of the following, if true, is the most direct criticism of the proponent’s response?

To answer this unique Weaken question, we have to find the answer choice that states "the most direct criticism of the proponent's response."

So, a key move is to get a precise understanding of what that response is.

Reviewing the passage, we see the following:

a proponent responds, “The average dose of radiation is less than one chest x-ray. As they watch, viewers won’t feel a thing.”

So, that's the proponent's response.

We can also see that the proponent is responding to the following:

Critics fear adverse health effects of such a monitoring system

So, we can presume that the point of the proponent's response is that, since the dose of radiation is less than one chest x-ray and viewers won't feel a thing, there's no reason to fear adverse health effects of such a monitoring system.

Now, set up with that information, we can go to the answer choices.

A. The system cannot determine whether persons in the viewing area are paying attention to what is being broadcast.

Since, as discussed above, the point of the proponent's response is to allay fears of adverse health effects, this choice, which is about attention, is not a criticism of the proponent's response.

Eliminate.

B. It is possible to gather reasonably useful data on who is watching programs by having selected families keep diaries of television watching.

Since the point of the proponent's response is related to health effects and is not that the system would be necessary or uniquely useful, this is not a criticism of the proponent's response.

Eliminate.

C. Some of those who would watch television sets with the monitoring device on are already ill with conditions that keep them at home.

Unlike most of the other answer choices, this one is fairly closely related to the proponent's response since this choice is related to health.

At the same time, this choice is not a direct criticism of the proponent's response. After all, even if this choice is true, the facts stated by the proponent could still mean that there's no reason to fear that the system would cause adverse health effects.

After all, the fact that someone is "already ill" does not mean that the system is harmful.

Eliminate.

D. Even recipients of large, harmful doses of radiation do not sense the radiation as it strikes the body.

This is a direct criticism of the proponent's response.

After all, the proponent responds by implying that there's no reason to fear adverse health effects caused by the system by saying that "viewers won't feel a thing."

So, if it's true that even recipients of large, harmful doses of radiation do not sense the radiation as it strikes the body, then the proponent's response doesn't truly allay fears of adverse health effects. After all, in that case, the fact that viewers won't feel a thing doesn't mean that they won't experience adverse health effects.

Keep.

E. Because it would invade privacy, acceptance of the monitoring device would have to be voluntary on the part of viewing families, and that restriction would skew the results.

While this choice presents an issue with the system, it's not a criticism of the proponent's response.

After all, the point of the proponent's response is related to adverse health effects and is not that the results produced by the device would accurately indicate what people's television-viewing habits are.

So, this choice is not directly related to the proponent's response.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:   D

guddo · Answer

People’s television-viewing habits could be monitored by having television sets, when on, send out low-level electromagnetic waves that are reflected back to the television sets. The reflected waves could then be analyzed to determine how many people are within the viewing area of the television sets. Critics fear adverse health effects of such a monitoring system, but a proponent responds, “The average dose of radiation is less than one chest x-ray. As they watch, viewers won’t feel a thing.”
 
 Which of the following, if true, is the most direct criticism of the proponent’s response?

The proponent tries to answer health concerns by saying the radiation dose is low and viewers will not feel anything.  The weak point  is that not feeling radiation does not show that the radiation is  harmless .

A. The system cannot determine whether persons in the viewing area are paying attention to what is being broadcast.

This attacks the usefulness of the system, not the proponent’s response to health concerns.

B. It is possible to gather reasonably useful data on who is watching programs by having selected families keep diaries of television watching.

This gives an alternative method, but it does not directly criticize the claim about safety.

C. Some of those who would watch television sets with the monitoring device on are already ill with conditions that keep them at home.

This might raise a concern, but it does not directly attack the proponent’s specific reasoning.

D. Even recipients of large, harmful doses of radiation do not sense the radiation as it strikes the body.

This is correct. It directly shows that “viewers won’t feel a thing” is not good evidence that the radiation will not have harmful effects.

E. Because it would invade privacy, acceptance of the monitoring device would have to be voluntary on the part of viewing families, and that restriction would skew the results.

This raises a privacy and data-quality issue, not a health-related criticism.

Answer: (D)

Gmat860sanskar · Answer

Stimulus summary : There is a device which can detect television habits of viewers by sending EM waves. Critics of this device fear that it could be harmful for health but proponent of this device don't think so because this radiation is less than one x-ray and also viewers don't feel any sort of such radiation.

Premise :  The average dose of radiation is less than one chest x-ray. As they watch, viewers won’t feel a thing.
  
Conclusion (Unstated but could be inferred) : Television sets device is not harmful for the Viewers

Which of the following, if true, is the most direct criticism of the proponent’s response?

This question could seem different from normal weakening type question,   but it's not.   here our main job is, just like weakening question, to weaken the conclusion of the proponent. So we have premise and conclusion let's deep dive into options.
 
 A. The system cannot determine whether persons in the viewing area are paying attention to what is being broadcast.
 
  Irrelevant, here conclusion is about health effects of television set.
  
 B. It is possible to gather reasonably useful data on who is watching programs by having selected families keep diaries of television watching.
 
  Again Irrelevant. We are not concerned with who is watching programs

C. Some of those who would watch television sets with the monitoring device on are already ill with conditions that keep them at home.
 
  Hmm this is a close choice because this talks about health effects, however does this attack proponent's conclusion ? Absolutely not, unless we assume that ill people get adverse health effects of such monitoring system (Which we can't assume, because this will be unwarranted assumption) 
 
 D. Even recipients of large, harmful doses of radiation do not sense the radiation as it strikes the body.
 
  This is our correct option, because this is attacking unstated premise of proponent that "Because viewer won't feel a thing, they are safe from adverse effect". so by showing that recipients of large, harmful doses of radiation also don't feel a thing , we have weakened the conclusion of proponent

E. Because it would invade privacy, acceptance of the monitoring device would have to be voluntary on the part of viewing families, and that restriction would skew the results.

Irrelevant , we aren't concerned about acceptance of monitoring device.

Gilmore · Answer

I am struggling to eliminate answer choice C and select D. My reasoning goes:
For Option C: If the people watching the TV sets are already ill than even radiation smaller than one x-ray maybe harmful to them. This is a criticism because it is not considering who the people watching the TV are that may have adverse health effects.
For Option D: Although this says that feeling the radiation is not a barometer for health outcomes because recipient of large harmful does of radiations do not sense the radiation but given the proponent is already saying that the radiation is less than one chest c ray, we know that the size is not as large.

Could someone please help answer this?

Bunuel · Answer

C is not strong because it only says some viewers are already ill. It does not show that this low-level radiation would harm them, or that their illnesses make them especially sensitive to this kind of exposure.

D is more direct because it attacks the proponent’s specific claim: “viewers won’t feel a thing.”  Not feeling radiation is not evidence of safety , since even harmful radiation may be  unfelt  when it strikes the body.

So D does not need to prove that this dose is large. It only shows that one part of the proponent’s response is a bad reason for dismissing health concerns.
For more, please review and study the three solutions already provided above.

Gmat860sanskar · Answer

Hello Gilmore,

C. Some of those who would watch television sets with the monitoring device on are already ill with conditions that keep them at home.

I agree that in the real world, your logic makes a lot of sense! But on the GMAT, this is one of the biggest traps in Weaken/Strengthen questions.
To make Option C work, we have to invent a brand new assumption:  that a radiation dose smaller than an x-ray is uniquely harmful to people with preexisting illnesses.  The passage never actually says that. Whenever you have to bring in outside assumptions and guess how things work in the real world to make an answer choice fit, it is almost certainly a trap. We have to stick strictly to the evidence provided.

D. Even recipients of large, harmful doses of radiation do not sense the radiation as it strikes the body.

It seems like you are getting distracted by the word "large" in Option D. You are right that the proponent is only talking about a small dose, but look closely at the exact logic the proponent uses to defend the system:
The proponent assumes, "Because viewers won't feel a thing, they are safe." Option D directly attacks that hidden assumption. It shows that human sensation is a terrible way to measure radiation safety, because humans don't even feel massive, deadly doses. We aren't saying the TV gives off a large dose; we are saying the proponent's specific evidence ("you won't feel it") is completely worthless for proving the system is safe. By destroying their main assumption, we completely weaken their conclusion.

I hope this helps:)

Gilmore · Answer

Thank you! This was very helpful.

Peoples television-viewing habits could be monitored by having televi

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Peoples television-viewing habits could be monitored by having televi

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards