Shy adolescents often devote themselves totally to a hobby to help dis

Question

Shy adolescents often devote themselves totally to a hobby to help distract them from the loneliness brought on by their shyness. Sometimes they are able to become friends with others who share their hobby. But if they lose interest in that hobby, their loneliness may be exacerbated. So developing an all-consuming hobby is not a successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness.

Which one of the following assumptions does the argument depend on?

(A) Eventually, shy adolescents are going to want a wider circle of friends than is provided by their hobby.

(B) No successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness ever intensifies that loneliness.

(C) Shy adolescents will lose interest in their hobbies if they do not make friends through their engagement in those hobbies.

(D) Some other strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness is generally more successful than is developing an all-consuming hobby.

(E) Shy adolescents devote themselves to hobbies mainly because they want to make friends.

TommyWallach · Accepted Answer

Hey All,

You got to the right answer, for the right reason, already, so I only have one thing to add. The way to improve generally at CR is to start to recognize patterns in both the passage structures and the answer choices. For what it's worth, this question falls into one of the 4 categories we separate out within the greater category of "assumption" questions.

The first category (represented in this question) is "logic gap". Just as honeyrai so efficiently explained, there is a syllogism here with a missing piece. In case you've forgotten, a syllogism is a logical argument that works in this way: If a = b and b = c, then a = c. Logic gap questions tend to say a = b, so a = c, and we lose out on that important b = c part. If you start to recognize this as a pattern that comes back again and again, you're more likely not to fall for a trick or trap.

Word up.

Hope that helps!

honeyrai · Answer

IMO B.
Assumptions are unsaid premises. They are those missing links that would complete the story. Everything moves fine till we encounter lasts sentence. That seems a bit out of place. Stem says that shy kids develop hobbies---> hobbies help them find friends ---> is they loose hobby then loneliness increases (fine) ---> Therefore, hobby is not a good idea?? Well there is a missing link between the last two lines.

And see that B is the only option that fits there. Hobby decreases loneliness---> loss of hobbies decrease loneliness---> any strategy that has a risk of intensifying loneliness isn't a good strategy---> Therefore, hobby isn't a good strategy.

Makes sense, doesn't it!

catfreak · Answer

IMO B
Explanation. Shy adolescents devote to hobby to distract from loneliness. 
 Sometimes they make friends who share hobby. ( Decreases Loneliness ). 
 Sometimes loose interest -> loneliness increases.

Conclusion: All consuming hobby is not best strategy for overcoming loneliness.

A. It is out of scope as WIDER CIRCLE OF Friends is not mentioned
B. Since the loneliness is increasing as a result of hobby so this is the assumption behind the conclusion.
C. It is not mentioned that loss of interest in hobby is due to not making friends.
D. Out of scope.
E. It is not mentioned in the passage that adolescents devote to hobby is to make friends.

shagalo · Answer

can any one explain B meaning :
(B) No successful strategy fro overcoming adolescent loneliness ever intensifies that loneliness.

i understood from B is that there are no stratigies will make the loneliness more sever . is my translation correct ? if it is not , why not correct ?

thanks

KyleWiddison · Answer

No, your interpretation is not correct. B is saying that no SUCCESSFUL strategies will make the loneliness more severe (intense) and that single word "successful" is very important.

Remember that assumptions fill the gaps in the logic from premise to conclusion. The premise is that the hobby strategy may cause intensified (more severe) loneliness THEREFORE it cannot be a successful strategy. Why can't it be successful? There seems to be some benefits. In order to believe that because of the intensified loneliness it can't be a successful strategy we have to assume that successful strategies will NOT ever make loneliness more intense (severe).

Hope that helps!
KW

GMATNinja · Answer

The author concludes that "developing an all-consuming hobby is not a successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness." How does the author arrive at that conclusion?

If an adolescent is shy, his/her shyness can cause loneliness. 
 To distract themselves from the loneliness, shy adolescents often immerse themselves in an all-consuming hobby. 
 Sometimes, those adolescents meet others who share the same hobby and develop friendships with those other people. 
 For example, two shy adolescents might become friends because they both enjoy playing the same video game.

But what if those adolescents lose interest in the hobby?

The friendship between the two shy adolescents, for example, was based on enjoying the same video game. 
 If one person no longer enjoys that video game, the friendship will likely fall apart. 
 Now the shy adolescents will feel lonely again... maybe even more so than before because they had a friend and lost him/her. 
 In other words, the loneliness can be exacerbated, or intensified.

So developing an all-consuming hobby can certainly  intensify  the adolescents' loneliness. Because of this, the author concludes that developing an all-consuming hobby is not a successful strategy for  overcoming  adolescent loneliness.

But does the fact that the strategy might  intensify  the adolescent's loneliness mean that the strategy will not help the adolescent  overcome  the loneliness?

What if the  intense  loneliness actually helps the adolescent  overcome  the loneliness? 
 For example, maybe the intensified loneliness was so bad that it motivates the adolescent to face his/her shyness and try to talk to more people. 
 In that case, a strategy that intensified the loneliness could also help overcome the loneliness. 
 This example would expose a flaw in the argument. 
 Choice (B) eliminates this possibility, so it is a required assumption.

Choice (C) talks about what happens if the adolescents do NOT make friends through that hobby.
 
  Perhaps the adolescents won't lose interest if they don't make any friends through that hobby. 
 In that case, they would remain  distracted  from their loneliness, but they will not  overcome  their loneliness. 
 More importantly, the argument focuses on what happens when they DO make friends through the hobby. 
 The hypothetical situation described in choice (C) does not NEED to be true for the argument to hold. Eliminate (C).

(B) is the best answer.

dcummins · Answer

The argument is that developing an all-consuming hobby is not a successful strategy to overcome loneliness.
 This is because:
p1: kids devote themselves fully to the hobby to distract themselves.
p2: they make friends in that hobby (overcoming the loneliness)
p3: if kids lose interest in that hobby, their loneliness worsens

The gap in logic is one that ties new terms "successful strategy" to the success/fail criteria we are presented i.e. "kids lose interest, worsening loneliness"

B does this.

You could negate B if you really need, but B is the only answer that ties in the new information presented.

B negated: some successful strategies for overcoming loneliness do intensify that loneliness --->Weakens the argument

gmatexplorer92 · Answer

Shy adolescents often devote themselves totally to a hobby to help distract them from the loneliness brought on by their shyness. Sometimes they are able to become friends with others who share their hobby. But if they lose interest in that hobby, their loneliness may be exacerbated. So developing an all-consuming hobby is not a successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness.

Which one of the following assumptions does the argument depend on?

(A) Eventually, shy adolescents are going to want a wider circle of friends than is provided by their hobby.
(B) No successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness ever intensifies that loneliness.
(C) Shy adolescents will lose interest in their hobbies if they do not make friends through their engagement in those hobbies.
(D) Some other strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness is generally more successful than is developing an all-consuming hobby.
(E) Shy adolescents devote themselves to hobbies mainly because they want to make friends.

Answer:

Premise #1: Shy adolescents devote to hobby to distract from loneliness.
Premise #2: Sometimes mutual hobbies help them make friends.
Premise #3: If interest in hobby is lost, loneliness may increase.
Conclusion: Developing an all-consuming hobby is not a successful strategy.

A -> This answer choice does not address the issue of the strategy that is discussed, which is to develop an all-consuming hobby. It may be true that eventually many friends are what are needed to avoid shyness, but that is not part of the argument.

B -> This is a contender. A successful strategy is one that does not intensify the loneliness. However, we know from the argument that the strategy of developing a hobby and then losing interest in it may / may not exacerbate loneliness.

C -> This may be true, however, the opposite of this can also be possible, wherein shy adolescents may lose interest if they make friends as well. This does not really defend the argument.

D -> It may be true that another strategy is generally successful, but does not help us with being able to draw the conclusion that developing an all consuming hobby then is not a successful strategy.

E -> Again, fair enough. But this also does not guarantee that they might not eventually lose interest and then subsequently end up feeling more lonely.

Therefore, the answer is B.

rajatyadav1994 · Answer

My perspective on this answer was to look at the conditionality in the statement:-

> Premise: If interest is lost, loneliness is exacerbated (L)
> Conclusion: So, developing an all-consuming hobby is not a successful strategy (SS)

# Paraphrase: If NOT a successful strategy (i.e., NOT SS)> loneliness exacerbated (L Increased)
>> Contrapositive: NO increase in L> SS

Contrapositive would imply that a Successful Strategy is NECESSARY for no increase in LONELINESS

Choice B 
Negated Statement: FEW successful strategies for overcoming adolescent loneliness may intensify loneliness (i.e., an increase in loneliness may be a sub condition or requisite for a few successful strategies too)

#If this were the case, then the argument that since the loss of interest increased loneliness, the strategy of having an all-consuming hobby is NOT a successful strategy would break.

Would love to hear perspective of experts on whether this is a correct interpretation of the question.

MBAApp27 · Answer

The correct answer is (B), and the negation method helps confirm why this is the assumption the argument depends on. Let's walk through it:

The Argument’s Structure

The argument says that developing an all-consuming hobby is not a successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness. It bases this on the possibility that losing interest in the hobby could make the loneliness even worse.

Identifying the Assumption

For the argument to be valid, it assumes that a "successful strategy" for overcoming loneliness wouldn’t make loneliness worse under any circumstances.
Negating Option (B)
Option (B) states: "No successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness ever intensifies that loneliness."

Negated Form of (B):  "A successful strategy for overcoming adolescent loneliness could intensify that loneliness." 
Applying the Negated Assumption

If (B) is negated, it opens the door to the possibility that even successful strategies might sometimes intensify loneliness. This directly undermines the argument because, if true, then the fact that developing a hobby might increase loneliness when interest wanes does not necessarily make it an unsuccessful strategy. In other words, the argument falls apart because it no longer holds that an all-consuming hobby cannot be a successful strategy simply because it  might  increase loneliness.

Why This Confirms (B) as Necessary

The argument’s reasoning relies on the idea that intensifying loneliness disqualifies a strategy as "successful." Without (B), the argument loses its basis, as it would have to allow that even a strategy that  sometimes  worsens loneliness could still be successful.

Thus, using the negation method confirms that (B) is the correct assumption the argument depends on.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Shy adolescents often devote themselves totally to a hobby to help dis

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

Shy adolescents often devote themselves totally to a hobby to help dis

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