Last visit was: 15 Jul 2025, 00:49 It is currently 15 Jul 2025, 00:49
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
605-655 Level|   Weaken|                           
User avatar
Hector1S
Joined: 31 May 2017
Last visit: 05 Apr 2023
Posts: 30
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 67
Products:
Posts: 30
Kudos: 12
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 14 Jul 2025
Posts: 7,353
Own Kudos:
68,544
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,966
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,353
Kudos: 68,544
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
jack0997
Joined: 11 Nov 2013
Last visit: 29 Oct 2022
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 25
Posts: 37
Kudos: 78
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 14 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,108
Own Kudos:
74,328
 [1]
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,108
Kudos: 74,328
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jack0997
AbdurRakib
The Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review 2018
Practice Question
Critical Reasoning
Question no. 182
Psychologist: In a study, researchers gave 100 volunteers a psychological questionnaire designed to measure their self-esteem. The researchers then asked each volunteer to rate the strength of his or her own social skills. The volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem consistently rated themselves as having much better social skills than did the volunteers with moderate levels. This suggests that attaining an exceptionally high level of self-esteem greatly improves one’s social skills.

The psychologist’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

(A) It fails to adequately address the possibility that many of the volunteers may not have understood what the psychological questionnaire was designed to measure.

(B) It takes for granted that the volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem had better social skills than did the other volunteers, even before the former volunteers had attained their high levels of self-esteem.

(C) It overlooks the possibility that people with very high levels of self-esteem may tend to have a less accurate perception of the strength of their own social skills than do people with moderate levels of self-esteem.

(D) It relies on evidence from a group of volunteers that is too small to provide any support for any inferences regarding people in general.

(E) It overlooks the possibility that factors other than level of self-esteem may be of much greater importance in determining the strength of one’s social skills.

Argument Evaluation

Situation
In a psychological study of 100 volunteers, those found to have the highest self-esteem consistently rated themselves as having much better social skills than did those found to have moderate self-esteem.

Reasoning
What is wrong with the psychologist citing the study's results to justify the conclusion that exceptionally high self-esteem greatly improves social skills? The psychologist reasons that the study shows a correlation between very high self-esteem and how highly one rates one's social skills, and that this correlation in turn suggests that very high self-esteem improves social skills. This argument is vulnerable to at least two criticisms: First, the argument assumes that the volunteers' ratings of their own social skills are generally accurate. But very high self-esteem might in many cases result from a tendency to overestimate oneself and one's skills, including one's social skills. Second, the argument fails to address the possibility that good social skills promote high self-esteem rather than vice versa, as well as the possibility that some third factor (such as a sunny disposition or fortunate circumstances) promotes both high self-esteem and good social skills.

(A) An experiment's subjects do not have to understand the experiment's design in order for the experimental results to be accurate.

(B) To the contrary, the argument concludes that the volunteers with the highest self-esteem attained their enhanced social skills as a result of attaining such high self-esteem.

(C) Correct. As explained above, very high self-esteem may often result from a tendency to overestimate oneself in general, and thus to overestimate one's social skills.

(D) A group of 100 volunteers is large enough for an experiment to provide at least a little support for at least some inferences regarding people in general.

(E) As explained above, the argument overlooks the possibility that some third factor may play a significant role in determining the strength of one's social skills. But even if some factor other than self-esteem is more important in determining the strength of social skills, that would still be compatible with very high self-esteem being of some importance in improving one's social skills.

GMATNinja, VeritasKarishma

Are (1) In a study, researchers gave 100 volunteers a psychological questionnaire designed to measure their self-esteem. AND (2) The researchers then asked each volunteer to rate the strength of his or her own social skills. two separate events?

I mean once event (1) is performed and then event (2) is performed.

jack0997

Yes, these are two separate events.
First, their "self esteem" was measured using a questionnaire.
Then they were asked to rate the strength of their own "social skills".
avatar
pk6969
Joined: 25 May 2020
Last visit: 02 Jan 2022
Posts: 136
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GPA: 3.2
Posts: 136
Kudos: 14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
[quote="AbdurRakib"]Psychologist: In a study, researchers gave 100 volunteers a psychological questionnaire designed to measure their self-esteem. The researchers then asked each volunteer to rate the strength of his or her own social skills. The volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem consistently rated themselves as having much better social skills than did the volunteers with moderate levels. This suggests that attaining an exceptionally high level of self-esteem greatly improves one’s social skills.

The psychologist’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

(A) It fails to adequately address the possibility that many of the volunteers may not have understood what the psychological questionnaire was designed to measure.

(B) It takes for granted that the volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem had better social skills than did the other volunteers, even before the former volunteers had attained their high levels of self-esteem.

(C) It overlooks the possibility that people with very high levels of self-esteem may tend to have a less accurate perception of the strength of their own social skills than do people with moderate levels of self-esteem.

(D) It relies on evidence from a group of volunteers that is too small to provide any support for any inferences regarding people in general.

(E) It overlooks the possibility that factors other than level of self-esteem may be of much greater importance in determining the strength of one’s social skills.

Hi AndrewN IanStewart
I was just reviewing my questions and saw this question. After analysing the answer choices, I wasn't sure about how can I eliminate B. Option B states that the argument takes for granted that volunteers with high levels of self esteem already had better social skills, even before they had high levels of esteem. So basically it makes self esteem independent of social skills. Hence, I found this a good weakener, thus making it vulnerable to criticism. Can you please explain where am I going wrong? I know that C is a better weakener but still couldn't eliminate B option(I try to follow policy of finding 4 wrong answers as music as possible).
User avatar
IanStewart
User avatar
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Last visit: 14 Jul 2025
Posts: 4,142
Own Kudos:
10,624
 [2]
Given Kudos: 97
 Q51  V47
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,142
Kudos: 10,624
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pk6969
(B) It takes for granted that the volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem had better social skills than did the other volunteers, even before the former volunteers had attained their high levels of self-esteem.

I was just reviewing my questions and saw this question. After analysing the answer choices, I wasn't sure about how can I eliminate B. Option B states that the argument takes for granted that volunteers with high levels of self esteem already had better social skills, even before they had high levels of esteem. So basically it makes self esteem independent of social skills. Hence, I found this a good weakener, thus making it vulnerable to criticism.

It's true that an answer like B could have been correct here, but it would need to say the exact opposite of what it does say. The argument ignores the possibility that the volunteers with the highest reported self-esteem already had great social skills, before attaining their high level of self-esteem. That is, the argument might be reversing cause and effect: the argument concludes that by raising self-esteem, one improves social skills. But it could be true that people first improve social skills, and that leads to higher self-esteem. That's actually the kind of answer I was expecting to find among the choices when I first saw this question, since so many CR questions test correlation/causation errors, but B essentially says the opposite of that, so it's not right. The argument doesn't "take for granted" that the social skills of the high self-esteem volunteers were good before that self-esteem was attained; instead it completely ignores that possibility.

pk6969
(I try to follow policy of finding 4 wrong answers as music as possible).

That might be a good policy when you're studying. When I'm answering official CR questions, my "policy" is to find the right answer, rather than the four wrong ones, because the logic of official questions is so airtight that the right answer will always be unambiguously correct.
User avatar
jabhatta2
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,304
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,304
Kudos: 283
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Experts - i was wondering if this is ANOTHER weakener.

(Option F) - Having Improvement in social skills CAUSES improvement in self esteem

If I understand, this is ANOTHER weakener to the argument.

Reason - i think the argument says -- improvement in self esteem CAUSES Improvement in social skills

Option F - reverses the causality.

Could you confirm ?

IanStewart
User avatar
jabhatta2
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,304
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,304
Kudos: 283
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Is (B) - can i replace the phrase "it takes for granted" to be instead "it assumes"
User avatar
IanStewart
User avatar
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Last visit: 14 Jul 2025
Posts: 4,142
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 97
 Q51  V47
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,142
Kudos: 10,624
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Option F - reverses the causality.

Could you confirm ?

IanStewart

Yes, you are right, that answer choice would have been right had it been among the choices -- my only previous post in this thread says exactly that, so you can read that post for more detail.

edit: and I just saw you made a followup post, and I think I address your followup question in my earlier post too.
User avatar
ashutosh_73
Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Last visit: 30 Oct 2024
Posts: 237
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 86
Location: India
Posts: 237
Kudos: 1,273
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
kunalkhanna
I am inclined towards 'B' and need suggestion to clear my doubt, according to me 'B' can be seen as reversal of cause and effect ie, high esteem is the result of social skills as people with the highest level of self esteem had better social skills even before attaining high levels of self esteem
kunalkhanna and tejyr, the psychologist suggests that attaining an exceptionally high level of self-esteem greatly improves one’s social skills. In other words, a high level of self-esteem causes improved social skills.

Choice (B), on the other hand, implies that the volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem already had better social skills, even before they had attained their high levels of self-esteem ("the former volunteers" simply refers to "the volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem").

But this is not consistent with the argument. If they already had better social skills, that would weaken the idea that a high level of self-esteem causes improved social skills (since the social skills were already good). So (B) should be eliminated.

Check out this post for a more complete explanation.

I hope that helps!



Hi GMATNinja , KarishmaB, MartyMurray

I read almost all the explanations here, but i am unable to understand why (B) is not the correct answer. Below are the reasons that i think support (B):


Premise:
Volunteers with high self-esteem consistently rated better on social skills than did volunteers with moderate levels

Conclusion:
exceptionally high level of self esteem(''A'') ---> improves social skills(''B'')

1. So the argument takes a big jump from a mere ''correlation'' to ''causation''

So if i prove that ''B'' was there before ''A'', then i am putting a dent on the argument.

It takes for granted that Volunteers had better social skills BEFORE they had attained their high levels of self-esteem.

so it weakens no?

2. GMATNinja explained in several posters that ''B'' weakens the arguments, and that ''weakens'' not equal to ''vulnerable to criticism''

But in option (C) we are doing nothing but weakening the argument, as we do in (B)

In both (B) and (C) we are actually claiming that: Hey your conclusion is not correct.

Sure, there is some gap in my understanding, please help!
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 14 Jul 2025
Posts: 16,108
Own Kudos:
74,328
 [4]
Given Kudos: 475
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,108
Kudos: 74,328
 [4]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ashutosh_73
GMATNinja
kunalkhanna
I am inclined towards 'B' and need suggestion to clear my doubt, according to me 'B' can be seen as reversal of cause and effect ie, high esteem is the result of social skills as people with the highest level of self esteem had better social skills even before attaining high levels of self esteem
kunalkhanna and tejyr, the psychologist suggests that attaining an exceptionally high level of self-esteem greatly improves one’s social skills. In other words, a high level of self-esteem causes improved social skills.

Choice (B), on the other hand, implies that the volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem already had better social skills, even before they had attained their high levels of self-esteem ("the former volunteers" simply refers to "the volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem").

But this is not consistent with the argument. If they already had better social skills, that would weaken the idea that a high level of self-esteem causes improved social skills (since the social skills were already good). So (B) should be eliminated.

Check out this post for a more complete explanation.

I hope that helps!



Hi GMATNinja , KarishmaB, MartyMurray

I read almost all the explanations here, but i am unable to understand why (B) is not the correct answer. Below are the reasons that i think support (B):


Premise:
Volunteers with high self-esteem consistently rated better on social skills than did volunteers with moderate levels

Conclusion:
exceptionally high level of self esteem(''A'') ---> improves social skills(''B'')

1. So the argument takes a big jump from a mere ''correlation'' to ''causation''

So if i prove that ''B'' was there before ''A'', then i am putting a dent on the argument.

It takes for granted that Volunteers had better social skills BEFORE they had attained their high levels of self-esteem.

so it weakens no?

2. GMATNinja explained in several posters that ''B'' weakens the arguments, and that ''weakens'' not equal to ''vulnerable to criticism''

But in option (C) we are doing nothing but weakening the argument, as we do in (B)

In both (B) and (C) we are actually claiming that: Hey your conclusion is not correct.

Sure, there is some gap in my understanding, please help!

Option (B) is plain wrong and once you see it, you won't be able to un-see it so here goes:

100 volunteers were asked to rate their own self esteem.
Then they were asked to rate their social skills.
Those who rated themselves as having high self esteem also rated themselves as having great social skills.

Conclusion: High self esteem leads to great social skills.



What is the flaw here? We are asking people to rate their self esteem and social skills themselves. Those who rate their self esteem highly - aren't they more likely to rate their skills and talents highly too? They have high self esteem - in simple words, they think they are really good and special. They are likely to say that they do their work really well, people like them, people like to be friends with them etc, aren't they? Yes, they are. And that is the problem. Do they really have good social skills? We don't know. Their own opinion may be biased because they rate themselves highly on esteem.
and that is the flaw of this argument. We cannot conclude that high self esteem gives one good social skills. To find out whether they actually have good social skills, we need to find a more unbiased method to rate their social skills.


Now look at (B): It takes for granted that the volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem had better social skills than did the other volunteers, even before the former volunteers had attained their high levels of self-esteem.

Does the argument take for granted (assume) that people with high self esteem had better social skills before they attained high esteem? No. Quite the contrary. The argument is actually saying that people got great social skills after they attained high self esteem and because of high self esteem. So if anything the argument is assuming that people got self esteem first and social skills after. Option (B) says that the argument is assuming that people already had great social skills before they attained high self esteem. But the argument is actually doing the opposite.
Hence option (B) is not the flaw in the argument.

In correlation causation terms, say an argument gives you:

Premise: A and B were found together.
Conclusion: A causes B.


Can I say that the argument is flawed because it is assuming that B was already present before A happened? No, the argument is certainly not doing that. It is saying that A caused B. It is not assuming that B was already present before A happened.

What you are getting confused with is - It FAILS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT that people could have already had high social skills before acquiring high self esteem.
This could have been a flaw (though our original argument focuses more on 'self evaluation' aspect) but option (B) does not give this. Look at the difference in the two highlighted parts above.
User avatar
thelastskybender
Joined: 26 Dec 2022
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 130
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 50
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
Posts: 130
Kudos: 69
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Would option B be correct if it were worded like this: 'It takes for granted that the volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem might have had better social skills than the other volunteers, even before the former volunteers had attained their high levels of self-esteem'?
User avatar
bb
User avatar
Founder
Joined: 04 Dec 2002
Last visit: 14 Jul 2025
Posts: 41,097
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 23,430
Location: United States (WA)
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
GPA: 3
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V42
Posts: 41,097
Kudos: 80,209
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
thelastskybender
Would option B be correct if it were worded like this: 'It takes for granted that the volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem might have had better social skills than the other volunteers, even before the former volunteers had attained their high levels of self-esteem'?

Hey there!

Sorry, I don't think B would be correct revised , and would likely be even a bit weaker than the original B.

  • The original "had" makes B sound like an assumption the psychologist is making (that skills were better beforehand).
  • "Might have had" turns it into a possibility the psychologist overlooks, which is a type of flaw, but it's still about an alternative explanation, not the reliability of the data in this question.


The strongest criticism of this argument is C), as it attacks the foundation of the evidence (the self-ratings).
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7353 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts