A study of children's television-watching habits by the federal depart

Question

A study of children's television-watching habits by the federal department of education found that children aged 7-10 who watched more than 25hours of television per week performed worse in school than children of the same age who watched fewer than 25hours of television per week. Therefore, parents of children aged 7-10 should prohibit their children from watching more than 25hours of television per week.

Which of the following if true, would best strengthen the argument?
A) A separate study, by renowned graduate school of education. found that when parents prohibited their children from watching any television, the children's reading scores increased rapidly and significantly and stayed high indefinitely.
B) Children who watched more than 25 hours of television per week also performed worse on measures of physical fitness than children who watched fewer than 25 hours per week.
C) The tele shows that children aged 7-10 are most likely to watch are saturated with ads for products, such as toys and candy, of little educational value.
D) The dept of education study gave appropriate weight to children of backgrounds representative of children nationwide.
E) Children who develop a habit of extensive television watching are more likely than others to maintain that habit as an adult.

chetan2u · Accepted Answer

Hi,
lets rewrite the PARA--
A svy says sbout a particular age group that if they watch TV more than 25 hours, they ar elikely to perform worse than those who watch less than 25 h a week..
therefore parents should prohibit students watching >25 h a week..

lets see the choices
A) A separate study, by renowned graduate school of education. found that when parents prohibited their children from watching any television, the children's reading scores increased rapidly and significantly and stayed high indefinitely.
 It seems to strengthening the argument, but fails on two accounts--
1) we are talking of a specific age group, while the choice is generic on age group
2) we are talkin of a threshold or a limit of 25 hours

B) Children who watched more than 25 hours of television per week also performed worse on measures of physical fitness than children who watched fewer than 25 hours per week.
 Our focus is in PERFORMANCE in school

C) The tele shows that children aged 7-10 are most likely to watch are saturated with ads for products, such as toys and candy, of little educational value.
 Out of context

D) The dept of education study gave appropriate weight to children of backgrounds representative of children nationwide.
 Tis choice CORRECTLY confirms fairness in the survey and sy to be true representive

E) Children who develop a habit of extensive television watching are more likely than others to maintain that habit as an adult.
 OUT of context

rishabhbansal101 · Answer

A simple way to solve all such CR questions is to find a statement which changes the conditions of the original experiment - because logically if the experiment was not conducted with the proper sample space - it cannot be used to reason an argument.

In this case - if D is correct or wrong, messes with the sample of students on which the experiment is based. Therefore, it is the most important point for the argument to hold true.

This is a universal rule - and applies to all CR questions.

GMAT - 770 (V44, Q50)

sun01 · Answer

In-depth analysis by chetan2u.

I was stuck in choice D for a while. but later realized that the option is playing the role of one of assumption that the author makes.

rs47 · Answer

Wondering why C is wrong.. If a kid initially spent say 30 hours on a show saturated with ads for products and reduced that time spent from 30 to 20 hours, it is quite possible that the kid's performance in school improved.. Please let me know where I am going wrong..

rs47 · Answer

chetan2u , why is C out of context?

UJs · Answer

A) A separate study, by xyz. found ..when parents prohibited children from  watching  any  television  -  any TV time vs less than 25 hour and more than 25 hour (so tricky but not related) 
B) Children who watched more than 25 hours also performed worse on physical fitness -  fitness not related  
C) The tele shows that child (7-10) ads for products, such as toys and candy, of little educational value. -   out of scope , as children watching under 25 hours may be watching the same ads, how are ads related to < > 25 hour TV time  
D) The dept of education study gave appropriate weight to children of backgrounds representative of children nationwide.    Correct , protect the argument from possible weakeners  
E) Children who develop a habit of extensive television. -  not related

rs47 · Answer

UJs , great got it.. thanks a lot!!

amarinetti · Answer

Here a person believes that parents should prohibit their kids from watching +25 hours of tv. He thinks this because of a study made by the education department. This is the argument you have to strengthen.

The argument is focusing in the hours of tv not in the content. For this type of questions fist find the conclusion and evidence (argument) of the person in question. Then find the answer that supports the argument.

nathalie1107 · Answer

B) Children who watched more than 25 hours of television per week also performed worse on measures of physical fitness than children who watched fewer than 25 hours per week.
 Our focus is in PERFORMANCE in school

---------------
I am wondering why it is not answer B.
Look, this is a strengthen question, not an assumption one.
If it is an assumption question, then D is the correct answer.
But as it is a strengthen question, then B should be the best choice. The choice should be an evidence, not an assumption. It will strengthen the conclusion that parents prohibit children from watching more than 25 hours of television per week not only due to school performance but also because of fitness performance.

Could anyone clarify?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

nathalie1107  It's fine to choose an assumption as a strengthen. The problem is only in going the other way. In other words, if a statement is necessary for an argument to make sense, then proving that assumption correct strengthens the argument. However, if a statement would strengthen the argument, that doesn't necessarily mean it is necessary for the argument to make sense.

Also, remember that our job is to strengthen the argument, not just to support the conclusion. The argument bases its conclusion that TV time should be restricted on the premise that kids who watch a lot of TV do worse in school. While B provides an  alternative  reason to cut down on TV, it does nothing to strengthen the existing argument.

In fact, B could weaken the argument. By providing another factor that these kids have in common, it leaves open the possibility that this other factor (low levels of fitness) is what is causing the children's poor performance in school. This kind of correlation/causation issue is quite common in CR. Sure, it's possible that TV is causing both effects (low fitness and low school performance), but it's also possible that poor fitness is causing both the TV viewing and the poor school performance. (For instance, maybe unhealthy children are more likely to stay in and watch TV, but also have trouble with schoolwork.)

nathalie1107 · Answer

Hi DmitryFarber (I still cannot post a link to your nickname), many thanks for your very thorough explanation.
It makes me feel much clearer about how an argument is constructed in the stimulus and how to select an direct answer, not a "disturbing" one.

warriorguy · Answer

standard GMAT type question. If you have a case study, then option which shows that the considered group is representative of all/most background then option would strengthen the argument.

D

techiesam · Answer

Can anyone plaease explain what does choice D means.

Posted from my mobile device

warriorguy · Answer

I'll try to explain what I understood from the argument.

If you are conducting a study about something and deducing something then we need to make sure that all the sufficient parameters have been taken into account. Here, the study is on children aged between 7-10 and their habits. It could be possible that the research was on similar types of kids and a conclusion was made for all the kids. This could hurt the argument and the conclusion. Hence D here states that the study was carried out on all types of kids and that given demographic truly represents entire population of kids between 7-10. This will help to solidify the claim.

dcummins · Answer

Conclusion : Parents of children aged 7-10 should prohibit children from watching more than 25 hours/ week

I'm just going to talk as to why D is correct versus A

A) A separate study, by renowned graduate school of education. found that when parents prohibited their children from watching  any television , the children's reading scores increased rapidly and significantly and stayed high indefinitely.
 
So this actually starts a whole new argument. Nitpick the highlighted words above and think how this is relevant to our argument that parents should prohibit excessive (~25 hours or more) TV watching. The argument isn't that we should eliminate TV watching, but rather that we should LIMIT it.

D) The dept of education study gave appropriate weight to children of backgrounds representative of children nationwide.
 
Recall that strengthen questions require us to strengthen the author's view (their conclusion) in some way. I'm going to get all textbook here and cite paraphrases I made of the CR bible.

How do we strengthen?
A.  Identify and analyse the conclusion  – this is what you need to strengthen
- Ask “would this answer choice assist the author in some way”
B.  Find missing link between premise and conclusion  – these can be assumptions made by the author
C.  Look for weaknesses in the argument  – because by eliminating this weakness we strengthen the answer. 
D.  If an argument relies upon surveys/ analogies  – then find an answer choice that strengthens the analogy or survey, or establishes their soundness;

Bingo - D, coincidentally, says that if an argument relies upon survey/s analogies then find an answer that strengthens the analogy or survey, or establishes their soundness. A

Back to Answer Choice D:  D) The dept of education study gave appropriate weight to children of backgrounds representative of children nationwide.

If the sample size of the study is representative of the population then the conclusion is more Sound. Hence, D strengthens the data upon which the conclusion is based.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation:

D

Step 1: Identify the Question Type

Here, we’re clearly asked to strengthen the argument; question stems don’t get much more straightforward than this.

Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus

As soon as you read the words “a study,” know that you’re probably dealing with a classic representativeness argument. The argument concludes that parents of children aged 7–10 should limit their kids’ TV watching to 25 hours per week. The evidence is a study indicating that kids aged 7–10 who watched more than 25 hours a week did worse in school.

Step 3: Predict the Answer

In order to strengthen an argument that relies on a survey as evidence, look for an answer choice that states that the sample used in the survey is representative of the population mentioned in the conclusion.

Step 4: Evaluate the Choices

(D) validates the representativeness of the sample directly. The author’s conclusion is about all parents of children aged 7–10. A study that “gives appropriate weight” to kids with diverse backgrounds is therefore more representative. (D) is the correct answer. (A) is out of scope because it deals with parents who prohibit their children from watching any television, rather than parents who hold their kids to a 25-hour-per-week limit. (B) is not relevant because it concerns physical fitness tests, not school performance. (C) does nothing to suggest that parents should limit their children’s television watching to 25 hours per week. It merely offers one reason that the shows kids watch are of little educational value. And (E) is outside the scope. The argument is not concerned with the habits of these children as they age; it deals only with the school performance of children from age 7 to 10.  Choice (D) is correct.

fireagablast · Answer

A just felt like a trap, but it was between A and D for me. 
D certainly strengthens the argument by suggesting that the study was preformed with (at least some) attention to it's variables.
I elimninated A because the conclusion was specifically about television under 25 hours, whereas A is about 0 hours. Although there is seemingly a correlation (less TV = better performance), it doesn't really help as much to boost the studies conclusion about a 25 hour/week cut off.

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.

A study of children's television-watching habits by the federal depart

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

A study of children's television-watching habits by the federal depart

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