The Georgetown Public School recommends that all its students take an

Question

The Georgetown Public School recommends that all its students take an active interest in playing chess. This is because, according to a recent medical study, those students who played chess on an average performed better in tests of general intelligence than those who did not play chess. Thus the school contends that playing chess will boost up the intelligence of its students.

Which of the following raises the most serious doubt about the conclusion above?

(A) Some students who perform well in tests of general intelligence do not play chess

(B) Intelligent students are the only ones who take an interest in playing chess

(C) A similar correlation has not been observed with regards to other sports such as baseball

(D) Some of the students who play chess perform poorly in subjects such as History

(E) There can be other ways in which a student could develop intelligence

This question is a part of QOTD Question Collection

deep14 · Answer

B. Assumption, playing chess will increase IQ. This will not hold if the relationship is actually opposite,ie only high IQ guys play chess

Posted from my mobile device

vijaisingh2001 · Answer

choice B, causal argument. these students are already brilliant, playing chess doesn't make them brilliant

sobby · Answer

Its B ..... Student that are already intelligent play chess.So they performed better in test from others.

pikolo2510 · Answer

Hello Experts,

Isn't A also weakening the conclusion?
If some students who performed well in tests of general intelligence do not play chess, then the school's decision to ask all students to play chess in order to boost the intelligence may not be successful

Please correct me if I am wrong

Prashant10692 · Answer

Choice B.

The cause and effect relationship is reversed.

Its not because of playing chess that the student are intelligent but because the they are intelligent, they play chess.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Answer: B

This is a classic case of correlation being confused with causation. Just because those students who play chess perform better in tests of intelligence does not necessarily imply that it is because of chess that these students have become intelligent. It could very well be that since these students are intelligent, they like to play chess, that is, the causality could actually be the other way around. B points this out and is the correct answer.

(A) The argument does not contend that playing chess is the only way to boost intelligence. There could be other ways as well. All the argument contends is that if a student plays chess then he or she will definitely become intelligent.

(B) The correct answer.

(C) Other sports are outside the scope of the argument.

(D) The argument restricts itself to tests of intelligence; there is nothing in the argument to suggest that all intelligent students will perform well in all subjects.

(E) Other ways of developing intelligence are again outside the scope of the argument.

Meet95 · Answer

it is a reversed pattern question.
if you go with prethinking than you can easily select B
a.some students-irrelavnat
b. as mentoned earlier.correct answer
c. baseball-irrelavant'
d. history-irrelavant'
e- might ne but this doesnt weaken

The Georgetown Public School recommends that all its students take an

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

The Georgetown Public School recommends that all its students take an

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