Studies show that children who listen too much classic music are more

Question

Studies show that children who listen too much classic music are more likely than others to become silent adults. Shawn, who is a silent adult, must have listened more classic music as a child than I did, since I am not silent.

Which of the following most closely parallels the logical structure above?

A. The shoes store in the city must have had a bigger advertisement in the Today paper than the shoes store in the countryside. The shoes store in the city sold twice as many shoes as the shoes store in the countryside did last week, and a Today paper advertisement has been shown to increase the number of shoes sold.

B. Studies show that fat people live shorter lives, on average, than thin people do. Tom is a fat man and therefore might be expected to live a shorter life than Peter, who is a thin man.

C. The mayor stated that all meetings would be canceled for the day if rainfall last night were greater than five inches. Therefore, since the rainfall was only four inches, we must be attending the meeting today.

D. According to research, people with unusual math talent do not achieve their true potential unless they are given formal lessons. Therefore Jeff, who has achieved his full math potential without formal lessons must not have unusual math talent.

E. People who like dogs also like cats. Karen does not like cats, so she must not like dogs either.

Carcass · Accepted Answer

Must VS hypothesis, this is why B is wrong (and the other answers) Please read the rules for posting in verbal section rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html regards

Ruru · Answer

I go with option A, here is my reasoning

First, lets see the way the argument is phrased. They first put forth a theory, stating that children who listen to classical music, grow up to be silent adults. The next sentence draws a comparison between Shawn and the author and then comes to a conclusion based on the theory. Let us see which analogy fits best with the above. 1) The shoes store in the city must have had a bigger advertisement in the Today paper than the shoes store in the countryside. The shoes store in the city sold twice as many shoes as the shoes store in the countryside did last week, and a Today paper advertisement has been shown to increase the number of shoes sold. Lets come to this one later 2) Studies show that fat people live shorter lives, on average, than thin people do. Tom is a fat man and therefore might be expected to live a shorter life than Peter, who is a thin man. Here, the argument first puts forth a theory and the conclusion is something that happens in the future and does not have a definitive outcome unlike the main argument where we know for sure how they turn out as adults. Thus this option is wrong. 3) The mayor stated that all meetings would be canceled for the day if rainfall last night were greater than five inches. Therefore, since the rainfall was only four inches, we must be attending the meeting today. Similar to option 2, non-definitive future event. 4) According to research, people with unusual math talent do not achieve their true potential unless they are given formal lessons. Therefore Jeff, who has achieved his full math potential without formal lessons must not have unusual math talent. This seems like a good option, but lets remember that in the main argument we made a comparison between 2 persons. In this argument, we are talking only about Jeff and his mathematical talents. 5)People who like dogs also like cats. Karen does not like cats, so she must not like dogs either. Similar to option number 4, we only talk about Karen. This leaves us with option number 1. Here we know for sure that the city sales were much better than the country side sales and we are also having a comparison between the city and country sales .

Carcass · Answer

Replying to a Pvt about this question

Sorry if I didnt fully explain in my previous post the reasons why A is correct and the others one do not

As such, when i said must VS hypothesis in the sense that the right choice do not mimic exactly what the stimulus tries to convey.

In the stimulus we do have something that COULD be true.

In A we do have a flaw because the question does not take in account other reasons why a person could be silent when adult. Could be the music or else.

IN the other options instead we do have clearly no alternative causes

Look at C

3) Studies show that fat people live shorter lives, on average, than thin people do. Tom is a fat man and therefore might be expected to live a shorter life than Peter, who is a thin man.

This kind of statistic is definitely true. All we know.

However, I didnt find a reliable source of this question. Yet, considering the OG question on mimic the argument this one is really not properly formulated.

I think is better to leave it behind and do not spend too much time on this one.

I am here for further discussions.

Regards

arhumsid · Answer

Guyz, this does not seem to be a very good post.

Option A is clearly incomplete! It doesnt have a 'logical' structure at all!

And, what is the last line " People who like Dogs.. " doing there? Is that an option too? Becuase that is, at least complete.

Now, it only gets a logical structure when we combine A and B together. This, i think, should be option A:
 "1) The shoes store in the city sold twice as many shoes as the shoes store in the countryside did last week, and a Today paper advertisement has been shown to increase the number of shoes sold. The shoes store in the city must have had a bigger advertisement in the Today paper than the shoes store in the countryside. "

But, still A isn't the correct answer.

To me, the last (un-numbered) option makes more sense.

But anyways, i request the poster to either clarify or remove/edit this post.

Ekland · Answer

Let me assist. Everything is wonderful with this question except one thing. It beats me that no one has pointed it out. CR is a logic not a creed. 
The answer is not B C D or E.
Because they didnt even copy the logic pattern.
A as well did NOT parallel the logic pattern. It would have paralleled the logic pattern had it said,  Studies show that  shoe stores with bigger ads in Today papers sell more than  shoe stores  with smaller ads in Today papers. The shoes store in the city sold more than shoe stores in the country side. Therefore . The shoes store in the city must have had a bigger advertisement in the Today paper than the shoes store in the countryside.

But the question asked,  Which of the following  most closely  parallels the logical structure above? .
Now there are options from B through E that more closely copied the logic than the other.
We do not know if A copied the logic more than the other since  A is not an argument . It has no premise.
We dont know what the heck led to the conclusion in A. It could be worse than the other options or better than them 
So factually A as it stands in that argument CANNOT be the answer.
The other options like B seems to be part of A but got truncated by a typo.
Please jettison this question.

Linhbiz · Answer

Here is a way I derived the answer A (after wrongly chose B) - I think it's just for my understanding, not sure if with this approach I will consume much more time or not during the real exam.

(The bracket indicate negate. e.g X, (X) = not X)

https://linhth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/CR-children-music.png

Please discuss more.

Thanks,
HL

avpk729 · Answer

I'll try and explain my reasoning for this question, I hope I can help explain why A is correct and the rest are not.

Studies show that children who listen too much classic music are more likely than others to become silent adults. Shawn, who is a silent adult, must have listened more classic music as a child than I did, since I am not silent.
Breakdown:
Premise:Children -> Listen too much classical music -> Become Silent Adults
Conclusion:
Shawn is silent <- Listened to more Classical than I
I am not silent <- Listened to less classical than Shawn

Which of the following most closely parallels the logical structure above?

1) The shoes store in the city must have had a bigger advertisement in the Today paper than the shoes store in the countryside. The shoes store in the city sold twice as many shoes as the shoes store in the countryside did last week, and a Today paper advertisement has been shown to increase the number of shoes sold.
City Store sold more shoes<- Posted Bigger Ad than Country store
Country store sold less shoes <- Poster smaller Ad than City store
Any store -> Puts Ads -> Increases Sales.
{Correct}
Hope you can see the correct logic here

2) Studies show that fat people live shorter lives, on average, than thin people do. Tom is a fat man and therefore might be expected to live a shorter life than Peter, who is a thin man.
Conclusion is made the premise here and a new conclusion is asserted.{Wrong}

3) The mayor stated that all meetings would be canceled for the day if rainfall last night were greater than five inches. Therefore, since the rainfall was only four inches, we must be attending the meeting today.
This is a straightforward logical statement, but is not the same as the question. {Wrong}

4) According to research, people with unusual math talent do not achieve their true potential unless they are given formal lessons. Therefore Jeff, who has achieved his full math potential without formal lessons must not have unusual math talent.
There is no comparison between Jeff and another person, therefore the reasoning isn't similar to the question stem. {Wrong}

5)People who like dogs also like cats. Karen does not like cats, so she must not like dogs either.
Similar to option D, Karen's preference isnt compared to another person. This is again different than the question stem, ergo: {Wrong}

Does my explanation make sense?

tann412 · Answer

I don't get all right but got this one correct. Let me put my thought process.

Logic:
Children + Too Much Classic Music, More Like than others (comparison) to become silent adults.
Shaun - SA, must have listened more than me, as I am not.

if A does X, A is more likely than B to become Z.
A is Z NOW, so A did X MORE than B did.

1) The shoes store in the city must have had a bigger advertisement in the Today paper than the shoes store in the countryside. The shoes store in the city sold twice as many shoes as the shoes store in the countryside did last week, and a Today paper advertisement has been shown to increase the number of shoes sold.

A=Shoe Store City, Y - Countryside Shoe Store. X - Advertising in Today Paper.

Doing X Increases Sales. (statement 3 in Option A) - Premise 1
A sold > than Y sold. (statement 2 in Option A) - Premise 2 (comparison)
A must have done more X, Y did less X. (statement 1 in Option A) - Conclusion
Premise and Conclusion can be anywhere.

2) Studies show that fat people live shorter lives, on average, than thin people do. Tom is a fat man and therefore might be expected to live a shorter life than Peter, who is a thin man.

Talks of possible future. What has already happened will be logical with Stimulus.

3) The mayor stated that all meetings would be canceled for the day if rainfall last night were greater than five inches. Therefore, since the rainfall was only four inches, we must be attending the meeting today.

-If A, then B. A did not happen => Opposite of B happens.
wrt to Stimular, doesn't have comparison. Simply Conditional Statement with 2 choices. not parallel.

4) According to research, people with unusual math talent do not achieve their true potential unless they are given formal lessons. Therefore Jeff, who has achieved his full math potential without formal lessons must not have unusual math talent.
 -No Comparison.

5)People who like dogs also like cats. Karen does not like cats, so she must not like dogs either.
 No Comparison with anyone. It's only about Karen. Stimulus is about, based on something one does more or does less, two people/objects/stores/institution etc become/achieve something.
 
Though it might be difficult to Interpret A properly. And I might not have been able to explain so well, but A seemed most logical to me.

kwanatk · Answer

We need to clearly define the logical structure.

The structure is that X (listening music) cause Y(silent), Y is found, thus Y must be because of X.

Breaking the sentence down, we can say there are 
1. X cause Y 
2. Y is found
3. Y must be because of X

Let's look at (A) 
1. X cause Y : Today paper advertisement (X) has been shown to increase the number (Y) of shoes sold
2. Y is found : shoes store in the city sold twice (Y = sales of shoes) 
3. Y must be because of X : The shoes store in the city must have had a bigger advertisement.

Even the sequence is changed, the elements are all fit, hence correct!

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.

Studies show that children who listen too much classic music are more

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 show that children who listen too much classic music are more

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