Researchers have discovered that parents who made their children, when

Researchers have discovered that parents who made their children, when they were between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of Pete Sampras, the legendary tennis player, had children who grew up to be much better tennis players than children of parents who did not do so. The researchers, thus, concluded that parents who wish to make their children pursue tennis should make their children, when they are between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of legendary tennis players.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?

Premise: Children that watch Pete Sampras become good tennis players.
Conclusion: Therefore, watch legendary tennis players if pursuing tennis.

(A) Pete Sampras was one of the greatest tennis players of all times and even modern tennis greats try to emulate him by watching his videos.
This is irrelevant since we are focused on a specific audience: children.

(B) When children, who are between 2 and 10 years of age, watch Pete Sampras play, the neurons in their brains make subconscious connections as a result of which these children are able to apply some of Pete Sampras’ playing style in their own game of tennis at a later stage in life.
Yes! This supports the conclusion as to why children should watch good tennis players if they wish to become good.

(C) Children whose parents made them watch videos of Pete Sampras when these children were more than 10 years of age also saw a marked improvement in their children’s ability to play tennis.
This is outside of age range of 2-10. In fact, this choice weakens the conclusion. Out.

(D) Parents who made their children, when they were between 2 and 10 years of age, watch videos of other legendary tennis players also reported that their children developed into excellent tennis players.
This subtly weakens the conclusion since the children watched other legendary tennis players not Pete Sampras

(E) Some children whose parents did not expose them to videos of any tennis players also developed into excellent tennis players later in life.
This weakens the argument that the child does not have to be between the ranges of 2-10. out.

Researchers have discovered that parents who made their children, when they were between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of Pete Sampras, the legendary tennis player, had children who grew up to be much better tennis players than children of parents who did not do so. The researchers, thus, concluded that parents who wish to make their children pursue tennis should make their children, when they are between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of legendary tennis players.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?

Cause: watch videos of Pete Sampras between the ages of 2 and 10
Effect: better tennis players than children of parents who did not do so
Aim : Strenghten

(A) Pete Sampras was one of the greatest tennis players of all times and even modern tennis greats try to emulate him by watching his videos.
This is a fact - does not strengthen.

(B) When children, who are between 2 and 10 years of age, watch Pete Sampras play, the neurons in their brains make subconscious connections as a result of which these children are able to apply some of Pete Sampras’ playing style in their own game of tennis at a later stage in life.
Correct - Strengthens the argument.

(C) Children whose parents made them watch videos of Pete Sampras when these children were more than 10 years of age also saw a marked improvement in their children’s ability to play tennis.
Weakens

(D) Parents who made their children, when they were between 2 and 10 years of age, watch videos of other legendary tennis players also reported that their children developed into excellent tennis players.
Weakens

(E) Some children whose parents did not expose them to videos of any tennis players also developed into excellent tennis players later in life.
Weakens

B and D are contenders.

IMO, the answer is D because

the conclusion of the given argument :
....concluded that parents who wish to make their children pursue tennis should make their children, when they are between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of legendary tennis players.

Although the argument talked about Pete Sampras, the conclusion is - legendary tennis players, not only of Pete Sampras, which made me choose D as an option.

If not D, then B is the obvious answer.

Official Explanation

Answer: D

There is a subtle scope shift taking place in the argument. While the evidence talks about Pete Sampras, the conclusion talks about legendary tennis players in general. The assumption, then, has to be that what applies to Sampras, applies to all legendary tennis players. D states this best and should be the correct answer.

(A) The conclusion is not about Pete Sampras but about legendary tennis players in general. This option fails to bring out the connection between the two.

(B) Same as A.

(C) Same as A.

(E) If anything, this option can weaken the argument by suggesting that there is no real connection between watching Pete Sampras play and children developing into great tennis players.­

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma if you guys can provide alternate explanation by B is wrong and D is correct

Posted from my mobile device

Strengthening- We have to make conclusion strong. Conclusion- For being better tennis player, children must watch videos of legendary tennis players, between 2 to 10 age.

(A) Pete Sampras was one of the greatest tennis players of all times and even modern tennis greats try to emulate him by watching his videos. -> Incorrect. Conclusion is about children.

(B) When children, who are between 2 and 10 years of age, watch Pete Sampras play, the neurons in their brains make subconscious connections as a result of which these children are able to apply some of Pete Sampras’ playing style in their own game of tennis at a later stage in life. -> subconscious mind is correct, but "Pete Sampras’ playing style" is not we are talking in conclusion.

(C) Children whose parents made them watch videos of Pete Sampras when these children were more than 10 years of age also saw a marked improvement in their children’s ability to play tennis. -> It is weakening the conclusion.

(D) Parents who made their children, when they were between 2 and 10 years of age, watch videos of other legendary tennis players also reported that their children developed into excellent tennis players. ->It is better than B. Correct.

(E) Some children whose parents did not expose them to videos of any tennis players also developed into excellent tennis players later in life. -> Weakening.

So, I think D.

Parents made kids (2 to 10 yrs) watch PS (legend) ==> Kids turned out to be better players (than the kids whose parents did not make them watch PS)

© Parents wish their kids pursue tennis ==> make the kids watch videos of (perhaps most) legend tennis players.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?

(A) So what? Yeah we get it PS was a legend but what about watching videos of tennis players except PS?
(B) Again PS was a great player and watching his game would make your kid a master(probably) with all these things happening to him when he watches the his games, but what about other players?
(C) Says, watching PS games to get better is not restricted to age but again the same problem as before.
(E) If E is true, Well then there is no point in watching PS videos or any other legend tennis player's videos.
D is correct. I hope somebody finds this useful.

If you ask: what kind of parents are forcing their children to watch Pete Sampras videos? Presumably parents who are interested in tennis. So if you then ask: which children are more likely to play tennis, and to take tennis lessons -- the children who are forced to watch Sampras videos, or the children who aren't? I think you'd expect that almost all of the children forced to watch Sampras were also forced to play tennis, and a much smaller fraction of the other children played tennis. So that's the most obvious explanation for the conclusion: the kids who watched Sampras all played tennis, while a lot of the other kids didn't, and of course if you have never played tennis, you're likely not going to be very good at it.

Since we have a much more plausible explanation for the conclusion than "the videos have some subliminal effect that turns children into tennis stars later in life", we absolutely need an answer that somehow connects the video-watching itself with tennis ability. So answer B has to be right. There is a problem with the question, though, because the argument does draw a conclusion about watching videos of "legendary tennis players" in general, not about watching Sampras in particular, so we'd also like some justification for extending the conclusion from Sampras alone to "legendary tennis players", and answer D does that. So D is also a good answer here. A real GMAT question would never have two right answers, so this is not a good question, but if we truly want the answer that "most strengthens" the argument, to my way of seeing things, that's unquestionably B.

Conclusion - The researchers, thus, concluded that parents who wish to make their children pursue tennis should make their children, when they are between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of legendary tennis players.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?


(A) Pete Sampras was one of the greatest tennis players of all times and even modern tennis greats try to emulate him by watching his videos. Neutral

(B) When children, who are between 2 and 10 years of age, watch Pete Sampras play, the neurons in their brains make subconscious connections as a result of which these children are able to apply some of Pete Sampras’ playing style in their own game of tennis at a later stage in life. Focus is on all legendary tennis players.

(C) Children whose parents made them watch videos of Pete Sampras when these children were more than 10 years of age also saw a marked improvement in their children’s ability to play tennis. Weakener

(D) Parents who made their children, when they were between 2 and 10 years of age, watch videos of other legendary tennis players also reported that their children developed into excellent tennis players. Correct answer choice which includes all the legendary tennis players

(E) Some children whose parents did not expose them to videos of any tennis players also developed into excellent tennis players later in life. Weakner

Isn’t option d repetition if the conclusion

Posted from my mobile device

The potential weakness of the conclusion is generalization. The passage uses one specific case to prove watching videos of legendary other tennis players also help children pursue tennis. However, D proves the generalization wrong. D attacks the weakness of the passage. Thus, this option strengthens the conclusion.

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.