Studies have shown that the number of books read in elementary school

Question

Studies have shown that the number of books read in elementary school is correlated with later academic success. In the past year, local elementary students have read an average of 10 fewer books than the nationwide elementary student average of 35 books per year, while 90 percent of those local students report playing sports at least twice a week. If these students participated less in sports, they would read more books.

Which of the following, if true, would most effectively weaken the argument?

(A) A nationwide survey of middle school students determined that if given a choice between reading a book and playing a sport, most of these students would choose reading a book.

(B) Participating in sports in elementary school has been shown to be as highly correlated as reading books to later academic success.

(C) The attention spans of elementary school students do not allow these children to read for as long as older students and adults are expected to read.

(D) The local elementary school is in a rural area in which there is no bookstore or public library and internet service is unreliable.

(E) Some local elementary school students who used to enjoy reading have said they no longer choose to read books, preferring to play sports at least twice a week.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

JoeAa · Answer

can anyone explain why B is incorrect?

Is it because the Q is asking - If these students participated less in sports, they would read more books instead of challenging sports brings as many benefits as books do?

ChandlerBong · Answer

Hi KarishmaB , B says - " Participating in sports in elementary school has been shown to be as highly correlated as reading books to later academic success. " We need to weaken the claim that "If these students participated less in sports, they would read more books." Can we say B is wrong because it doesn't give us reason to weaken the claim that if students participated "less" in sports, then they would read more books? B is only talking about the benefits of local children playing sports. Is this the correct reason to eliminate B? D says - " The local elementary school is in a rural area in which there is no bookstore or public library and internet service is unreliable ." So this actually weakens the claim by telling us that even if they participated "less" in sports, the local children would not be able to read more books due to these obstacles and hence, weakens the claim. Can you please share your approach to eliminate B? Thanks in advance!

KarishmaB · Answer

The argument implies that students here read fewer books because they participate more (or are made to participate more) in sports. Hence the conclusion "If these students participated less in sports, they would read more books." We have to weaken it i.e. we have to say that even if they participated less in sports, they may not read more books. (B) Participating in sports in elementary school has been shown to be as highly correlated as reading books to later academic success Option (B) says that sports also has the same advantage as does reading books. It is irrelevant to our argument because we are discussing whether participating less in sports will increase the reading habit. We are not discussing whether we should focus on whether students should play sports or not. We are discussing what will happen if students spent less time playing sports. Note that it is a conditional conclusion. Option (D) says that even if they participated less in sports, they may not read more books because books are not readily available to them. Hence it weakens the conclusion. Check out another question on conditional conclusion here: https://anaprep.com/critical-reasoning- ... ents-joey/

ChandlerBong · Answer

Thanks, KarishmaB , understood!

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE 
Since the word “weaken” appears in the question stem, this is a Weaken question.

STEP 2: UNTANGLE THE STIMULUS 
The conclusion is that if the local elementary school students played sports less, they would read more books. The evidence is that almost all of these students play sports two or more times a week, while the average number of books they read is lower than the national average. The author assumes that playing sports is causing students to read relatively fewer books. Note that the first sentence of the stimulus functions as background information rather than as evidence; it tells you why reading books might be important, but it is not used to support the claim that the students would read more books if they played sports less.

STEP 3: PREDICT THE ANSWER 
Whenever you’re asked to weaken a causal argument, consider the three classic alternative explanations: (1) cause and effect may be reversed (“reading fewer books leads to playing sports more often”), (2) there may be an alternative cause of the effect (“many local students have little access to books”), or (3) the apparent link between two events is coincidental (“whatever the cause of reading fewer books, it isn’t playing sports”). You don’t know exactly what the right answer will say, but you can expect it to fall into one of these three categories.

STEP 4: EVALUATE THE CHOICES 
(D) weakens the argument by proposing another reason local children don’t read books and do play sports. Since books are hard to get, if the children weren’t allowed to play sports, they might just be bored rather than read more. Thus,  (D) is correct.  (A) is irrelevant because the argument is concerned with local elementary school students, not middle school students from across the country. The author’s conclusion is about what would cause students to read more books, not about the effect their not reading books will eventually have, so (B) does not weaken the argument. (C) presents an irrelevant comparison. The argument specifically compares local elementary school students to a national population of elementary school students, so how younger children compare to older readers is irrelevant. (E) is a 180. It strengthens the argument, suggesting that indeed playing sports caused these students to read fewer books.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Studies have shown that the number of books read in elementary school

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

Studies have shown that the number of books read in elementary school

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