IMO the ans is D. Am split for choice between D & A really. But the conclusion really is that presence of gene leads to inclination to thrill seeking. D says that the behavior in adult is different than in childhood. So the the correlation between behavior in childhood and adult is no longer valid. options A,B,C dont talk of thrill seeking behaviour but impulsive behavior, a slight twist really!

Answer would be B. Pretty straightforward...

In my opinion E is tricky but the answer is B BUT as always:LSAT are not good questions for gmat reasoning. In my opinion
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

Can someone help on this. I did not get why B is the answer

nightblade354 gmatexam439 SonalSinha803 GMATNinja abhimahna
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the Gods, All the Heavens, and All the Hells lie within you.

Hi may be in can help ,

Here is the argument with all the choices.

Scientist: My research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have a gene variant that increases sensitivity to dopamine. From this, I conclude that there is a causal relationship between this gene variant and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior.

Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the scientist's argument?

A) Many impulsive adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine.

B) It is not possible to reliably distinguish impulsive behavior from other behavior.

C) Children are often described by adults as engaging in thrill-seeking behvaior simply because they act impulsively.

D) Many people exhibit behavioral tendencies as adults that they did not exhibit as children.

E) The gene variant studied by the scientist is correlated with other types of behavior in addition to thrill-seeking behavior.

OA is B.

This is weaken the argument question. We can weaken the argument in many ways namely: Show that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, discredit any premise of the argument, discredit the assumption of the argument.

Now coming on to this question we have a very real phenomenon going on today i.e. https://www.rxlist.com/antibiotic_resis ... dition.htm

A is out of scope. This choice may be true but this information does not help us in the case of children.

B correct. One way to destroy the argument is to question the sample space or the statistics used in the argument. Here the methodology to classify various types of behavior is questioned and if this is indeed true then we have serious doubts to take the conclusion as true. Hence this option weaken the argument.

C Is just information from the passage and again offers no conclusive information to doubt the conclusion.

D This choice is out of scope as there are always people who would deviate from the said behavior that they did not display in their childhood. They may have been coy or introvert in their child hood but now as adults they have become extrovert and daring. So it can not establish casual relationship discussed in the argument.

E Again this may be true but we are concerned with only thrill seeking behavior. So again out of scope.
_________________

Please give kudos if you found my answers useful