It is currently 19 Feb 2018, 14:12

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The more television children watch, the less competent

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior CR Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1329
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
The more television children watch, the less competent [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2017, 22:54
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

64% (02:24) correct 36% (01:23) wrong based on 295 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mathematical knowledge. More than a third of children in the United States watch television for more than five hours a day; in South Korea the figure is only 7 percent. But whereas less than 15 percent of children in the United States understand advanced measurement and geometric concept, 40 percent of South Korea children are competent in these areas. Therefore, if Untied States children are to do well in mathematics, they must watch less television.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

(A) Children in the United States are less interested in advanced measurement and geometric concepts than are South Korea children.

(B) South Korea children are more disciplined about doing schoolwork than are children in the United States.

(C) Children who want to do well in advanced measurement and geometry will watch less than television.

(D) A child's ability in advanced measurement and geometry increases if he or she watches less than one hour of television a day.

(E) The instruction in advanced measurement and geometric concepts available to children in the United States is not substantially worse than that available to South Korea children.

Source: LSAT
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Actual LSAT CR bank by Broall

How to solve quadratic equations - Factor quadratic equations
Factor table with sign: The useful tool to solve polynomial inequalities
Applying AM-GM inequality into finding extreme/absolute value

New Error Log with Timer

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
S
Joined: 31 Jul 2015
Posts: 37
Location: India
Premium Member
Re: The more television children watch, the less competent [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Sep 2017, 07:59
1
This post received
KUDOS
broall wrote:
The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mathematical knowledge. More than a third of children in the United States watch television for more than five hours a day; in South Korea the figure is only 7 percent. But whereas less than 15 percent of children in the United States understand advanced measurement and geometric concept, 40 percent of South Korea children are competent in these areas. Therefore, if Untied States children are to do well in mathematics, they must watch less television.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

(A) Children in the United States are less interested in advanced measurement and geometric concepts than are South Korea children.

(B) South Korea children are more disciplined about doing schoolwork than are children in the United States.

(C) Children who want to do well in advanced measurement and geometry will watch less than television.

(D) A child's ability in advanced measurement and geometry increases if he or she watches less than one hour of television a day.

(E) The instruction in advanced measurement and geometric concepts available to children in the United States in not substantially worse than that available to South Korea children.

Source: LSAT


(A) Children in the United States are less interested in advanced measurement and geometric concepts than are South Korea children.
- less interested is totally out of scope and doesn't really help to prove the conclusion, as we do not know how watching less television, is going to effect on children who are less interested in mathematical knowledge.

(B) South Korea children are more disciplined about doing schoolwork than are children in the United States.
- This is again out of scope. This information doesn't help us to prove the fact that watching less TV -> children will do well in maths.

(C) Children who want to do well in advanced measurement and geometry will watch less than television.
- We need to prove : watching less TV -> children will do well in maths.
So, this is just the opposite.

(D) A child's ability in advanced measurement and geometry increases if he or she watches less than one hour of television a day.
- The premise says about children who watches TV for 5 hrs. We can not prove the conclusion using this piece of information.

(E) The instruction in advanced measurement and geometric concepts available to children in the United States in not substantially worse than that available to South Korea children.
- Ok, the author here used a technique to falsify a scenario that could have hurt our conclusion.
Negating this , will hurt the conclusion.
Assuming that the students of USA and South Korea have similar potential to grasp knowledge, if the concepts available to the students of USA are not as good as that of South Korea, the conclusion may not be always true.
So, E, IMO is the correct answer.
_________________

Never give up !

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 28 Jun 2015
Posts: 98
Location: Australia
Re: The more television children watch, the less competent [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Oct 2017, 14:08
E
B is a good distraction. Out of scope though, close but not close enough.
Pattern: Another way?
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 1910
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: The more television children watch, the less competent [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Dec 2017, 20:30
broall wrote:
The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mathematical knowledge. More than a third of children in the United States watch television for more than five hours a day; in South Korea the figure is only 7 percent. But whereas less than 15 percent of children in the United States understand advanced measurement and geometric concept, 40 percent of South Korea children are competent in these areas. Therefore, if United States children are to do well in mathematics, they must watch less television.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument depends?

(A) Children in the United States are less interested in advanced measurement and geometric concepts than are South Korea children.

(B) South Korea children are more disciplined about doing schoolwork than are children in the United States.

(C) Children who want to do well in advanced measurement and geometry will watch less than television.

(D) A child's ability in advanced measurement and geometry increases if he or she watches less than one hour of television a day.

(E) The instruction in advanced measurement and geometric concepts available to children in the United States in not substantially worse than that available to South Korea children.

Source: LSAT

This argument is overall assuming that everything is the same between South Korea and the U.S. What if South Korea spends all of its school day on math while the U.S. is more of a liberal arts type of education. Also, this argument is assuming that the same people who watch TV for 5+ hours a day are not the same people that excel in math. What if it just so happens that they do both? In addition, there is a really interesting shift from "understanding advanced measurement and geometric concepts" to "doing well in mathematics." It seems to me that this goes from a specific skill to a general knowledge

The first sentence looks like a fact, but ultimately I think LSAC intended it as a claim we could attack (since the conclusion says something similar).

In any modern test, I think the second sentence would start with "After all" / "To see this", etc., so that we would know that the first sentence is a subsidiary conclusion we can attack.

- notice the gap between adv meas / geom concepts vs. 'doing well in mathematics'.

We could have easily seen a correct answer say something like
(A) one's ability to understand advanced measurement and geometric concepts is relevant to whether one is doing well in mathematics

For (C), it doesn't literally say the same thing as the conclusion, but I agree that it feels close enough to think, "Hmmm, this doesn't seem to be addressing a gap or ruling out a potential objection".

(C) is focused on children's self-directed efforts to watch less television. It's saying that the kids who really want to do well in math will take it upon themselves to watch less TV.

The author doesn't have to assume that. He's free to make his conclusion while assuming that we will have to tear all kids kicking and screaming away from the television.

(not to nerd out here, but I'm not in love with the correct answer. If I say, "to win that tennis tournament, Ben is going to have to improve his serve", it doesn't weaken that claim at all to point out that his serve isn't the only problem: his backhand and net game are also struggling. Similarly, the fact that (E) points out a gap in instructional quality in the US vs. South Korea doesn't really affect the claim that excessive TV watching is hurting US students. More than one thing can concurrently be hurting US students. So as I said at the outset, the writing of this question is pretty loose by modern standards)

-------------*----------------*------------------
The above is an explanation by an MGMAT instructor.
In the conclusion, watching less television is a necessary condition for "United States children... well in maths", but it is not a sufficient condition.
If we change the conclusion from
Therefore, if United States children are to do well in mathematics, they must watch less television.
TO -
If US children watch less television, then they will do well in maths.
Now, since "watching less television" is a sufficient condition, so won't option E be a better assumption?

AjiteshArun , mikemcgarry ,GMATNinja ,ChiranjeevSingh , other experts -- please enlighten .
_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
G
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1437
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: The more television children watch, the less competent [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2017, 16:22
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
Skywalker18 wrote:
This argument is overall assuming that everything is the same between South Korea and the U.S. What if South Korea spends all of its school day on math while the U.S. is more of a liberal arts type of education. Also, this argument is assuming that the same people who watch TV for 5+ hours a day are not the same people that excel in math. What if it just so happens that they do both? In addition, there is a really interesting shift from "understanding advanced measurement and geometric concepts" to "doing well in mathematics." It seems to me that this goes from a specific skill to a general knowledge

The first sentence looks like a fact, but ultimately I think LSAC intended it as a claim we could attack (since the conclusion says something similar).

In any modern test, I think the second sentence would start with "After all" / "To see this", etc., so that we would know that the first sentence is a subsidiary conclusion we can attack.

- notice the gap between adv meas / geom concepts vs. 'doing well in mathematics'.

We could have easily seen a correct answer say something like
(A) one's ability to understand advanced measurement and geometric concepts is relevant to whether one is doing well in mathematics

For (C), it doesn't literally say the same thing as the conclusion, but I agree that it feels close enough to think, "Hmmm, this doesn't seem to be addressing a gap or ruling out a potential objection".

(C) is focused on children's self-directed efforts to watch less television. It's saying that the kids who really want to do well in math will take it upon themselves to watch less TV.

The author doesn't have to assume that. He's free to make his conclusion while assuming that we will have to tear all kids kicking and screaming away from the television.

(not to nerd out here, but I'm not in love with the correct answer. If I say, "to win that tennis tournament, Ben is going to have to improve his serve", it doesn't weaken that claim at all to point out that his serve isn't the only problem: his backhand and net game are also struggling. Similarly, the fact that (E) points out a gap in instructional quality in the US vs. South Korea doesn't really affect the claim that excessive TV watching is hurting US students. More than one thing can concurrently be hurting US students. So as I said at the outset, the writing of this question is pretty loose by modern standards)

-------------*----------------*------------------
The above is an explanation by an MGMAT instructor.
In the conclusion, watching less television is a necessary condition for "United States children... well in maths", but it is not a sufficient condition.
If we change the conclusion from
Therefore, if United States children are to do well in mathematics, they must watch less television.
TO -
If US children watch less television, then they will do well in maths.
Now, since "watching less television" is a sufficient condition, so won't option E be a better assumption?

AjiteshArun , mikemcgarry ,GMATNinja ,ChiranjeevSingh , other experts -- please enlighten .

Skywalker18, I agree. If the conclusion were changed as you suggested, then choice (E) would very clearly be a required assumption.

As for the given conclusion, the word "must" is very important. The author is implying that television is the problem in the US. If the kids in the US would watch less television, then they would do well in math.

In order for this reasoning to hold, we have to assume that there are no other obstacles preventing the US children from doing well in math. But what if, for example, the instruction in those concepts is really bad in the US? In that case, reducing television watching might not be enough to cause those children to do well. The first sentence suggests that they might do a bit better, but they still might not do well.

Furthermore, if the instructional materials/methods themselves are bad, then it's possible that the children would do better if they simply had better materials/methods. Maybe they could continue watching 5 hours of television per day and still do pretty well if the instruction were improved.

The author's logic is only valid if we assume that the quality of the instruction available to US children is close to that of the instruction available to SK children. Choice (E) is a more obvious assumption if we change the conclusion, as noted by Skywalker18, but as is choice (E) is still the best answer.

I hope that helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset -- starts February 14!

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99... in any section order

Re: The more television children watch, the less competent   [#permalink] 30 Dec 2017, 16:22
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The more television children watch, the less competent

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.