Author 
Message 
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Status: Long way to go!
Joined: 10 Oct 2016
Posts: 1301
Location: Viet Nam

The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 20 Jan 2020, 07:43
Question Stats:
70% (01:41) correct 30% (01:51) wrong based on 588 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.
Official Answer and Stats are available only to registered users. Register/ Login.
_________________
Originally posted by broall on 24 Sep 2017, 22:54.
Last edited by Bunuel on 20 Jan 2020, 07:43, edited 2 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.



Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2015
Posts: 29
Location: India

Re: The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
25 Sep 2017, 07:59
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.
_________________



Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2015
Posts: 77
Location: Australia

Re: The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
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
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2455
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)

Re: The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
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 selfdirected 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



GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3172
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170 GRE 2: Q170 V170

Re: The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
30 Dec 2017, 16:22
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 selfdirected 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!
_________________



Manager
Joined: 24 Mar 2018
Posts: 238

Re: The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Nov 2018, 23:50
DavidTutorexamPAL GMATNinja nightblade354 gmat1393 AjiteshArun Skywalker18 VeritasKarishmaWhy D is wrong ? I rejected it because E sounded more good to me but I want to know the exact reason why it is wrong



examPAL Representative
Joined: 07 Dec 2017
Posts: 1154

Re: The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Nov 2018, 04:35
teaserbae wrote: DavidTutorexamPAL GMATNinja nightblade354 gmat1393 AjiteshArun Skywalker18 VeritasKarishmaWhy D is wrong ? I rejected it because E sounded more good to me but I want to know the exact reason why it is wrong D is primarily wrong because it is not an assumption  it is the argument! . The claim is that mathematical knowledge is hurt by TV watching; D merely restates this, in a more detailed way. But an assumption has to be separate than the claim itself. Another reason is that, in being more specific, D is actually not essential. An assumption must be true in order for an argument to be true; in other words, it is impossible that the argument is true and the assumption isn't . this simply isn't the case here: it is clearly possible that TV hurts math knowledge in general, but that being 59 minutes or 61 minutes doesn't matter at all: in other words, that the claim in D is not true.
_________________



Intern
Joined: 20 Jul 2018
Posts: 16

Re: The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Jan 2020, 08:26
Try the negation method negate each option and check whether conclusion holds or not.
If you negate the correct option, the conclusion also fails.
Example In option 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.
Now negate the option  The instruction in advanced measurement and geometric concepts available to children in the United States is substantially worse than that available to South Korea children.
So it tells us that USA children are not performing well because of poor teaching as compared to South Korea and not because of TVs. So conclusion does not hold good.
So E is the correct answer.



Intern
Joined: 16 Oct 2018
Posts: 32

Re: The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mat
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Jan 2020, 02:19
rohanraleYour answer seems to be the most easiest so far to understand. Is it preferable to use the negation technique (negate the answer choice to check if the conclusion holds) to answer most of the assumption questions? Or would you suggest something else?




Re: The more television children watch, the less competent they are in mat
[#permalink]
21 Jan 2020, 02:19






