Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who listen to music on headpho

Question

Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who listen to music on headphones on a regular basis are three times as likely to develop serious hearing loss as are adolescents who do not use headphones. Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors would help to reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents.

In assessing the doctor’s assertion, it would be most useful to know which of the following?

a. percentage of federal legislators who would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors.
 
b. The number of adolescents who use headphones on a regular basis but do not suffer from hearing loss.
 
c. The extent to which other common adolescent behaviors contribute to hearing loss. 
 
d. The percentage of parents who would refuse to purchase headphones for their adolescent children.
 
e. The difference in level of hearing loss between adults who have used headphones since adolescence and those who began using headphones as adults.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Responding to a pm: Adolescents who use headphones regularly are 3 times as likely to develop hearing loss as those who do not. Conclusion:Federal legislation prohibiting the sale of headphones to minors would help to reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents. Note what the assertion is: A law prohibiting the sale to minors will reduce the prevalence of hearing loss. It says a law will help. We need to evaluate whether this law will help. Be careful - we DO NOT need to evaluate whether such a law can be passed or not. We need to figure out that if there is such a law, will it help. It is similar to a case of conditional conclusion which I have discussed here: https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2012/1 ... onclusion/ a. percentage of federal legislators who would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors. This is trying to evaluate whether such a law can be passed. The point is we don't have to evaluate that. We have to evaluate whether such a law can reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents. This is not the answer. b. The number of adolescents who use headphones on a regular basis but do not suffer from hearing loss. We are looking for a reduction in the number, whatever the current percentage may be. This is irrelevant. c. The extent to which other common adolescent behaviors contribute to hearing loss. Irrelevant. We want to reduce the number of hearing losses due to headphones. Other causes are irrelevant. d. The percentage of parents who would refuse to purchase headphones for their adolescent children. This will help us evaluate whether refusing sale to adolescents will actually curtail access to them. It will certainly help in evaluating whether our law will help the desired impact. e. The difference in level of hearing loss between adults who have used headphones since adolescence and those who began using headphones as adults. Irrelevant. Answer (D)

anje29 · Answer

It is build on same logic as a official question about videogames.

arjittak · Answer

QA - E
It seems most appropriate option among all after using extremity test

Sent from my A0001 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

anje29 · Answer

Option E is out of scope.
Here the conclusion is  'Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors would help to reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents. ' 
 
Question asked which of the following will help to assess the doctor's assertion ( conclusion) , option D is useful in assessing that doctor's conclusion. The success of author's assertion that federal legislation will reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents will depend on how many parents will buy headphones for their minors . For example if parents will not deny the headphones to minors then federal legislation prohibition of sale of headphones to minors will not make difference in the current situation.

mvictor · Answer

I almost fell for B, but then - i re-read the argument - "prohibits the sale of headphones to minors" - it is obviously D.

Neha1234 · Answer

please explain why d choice is right as oppose to E

aragonn · Answer

Neha1234

For such question look for what is your aim -  in this case aim is to reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents.

Now this one is an evaluate question So strategy would be to answer of yes/no should weaken/strengthen the option. Keep one thing in mind, what ever answer say assume it is true.

a. percentage of federal legislators who would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors.
Yes/No - either way, will it prevent minor from listening on headphone - No

b. The number of adolescents who use headphones on a regular basis but do not suffer from hearing loss.
High/Low - either way, will it prevent minor from listening on headphone - No

c. The extent to which other common adolescent behaviors contribute to hearing loss. 
More/less - either way, will it prevent minor from listening on headphone - No

d. The percentage of parents who would refuse to purchase headphones for their adolescent children.
 Let say this percentage is higher, then this will not prevent minor from listening on headphone --- this will weaken the stand
Let say this percentage is lower, then this will prevent many minor from listening on headphone ---- This will strengthen the stand
We were looking for something like this. D is our choice.

e. The difference in level of hearing loss between adults who have used headphones since adolescence and those who began using headphones as adults. - irrelevant

Neha1234 · Answer

Ok basically we have to choose the choice which is evalauting the decresed head phones use scenario.. thanks for clarification argonnn..

Posted from my mobile device

jawele · Answer

Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who listen to music on headphones on a regular basis are three times as likely to develop serious hearing loss as are adolescents who do not use headphones. Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors would help to reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents.

In assessing the doctor’s assertion, it would be most useful to know which of the following?

a. percentage of federal legislators who would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors.
b. The number of adolescents who use headphones on a regular basis but do not suffer from hearing loss.
c. The extent to which other common adolescent behaviors contribute to hearing loss. 
d. The percentage of parents who would refuse to purchase headphones for their adolescent children.
e. The difference in level of hearing loss between adults who have used headphones since adolescence and those who began using headphones as adults.

Could anybody please pinpoint the exact reason why C is incorrect? My doubt stems from addressing the part "would help to reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents". So the doctor gives some statistics, but the conclusion seems to address all the cases that cause hearing loss. Note that it doesn't mention anything like "reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents who use headphones" - this is a very simple example, but I hope it helps to make my point. Therefore, if there were other substantial factors that may have affected the hearing loss considerably, than no matter whether you ban the sale of headphones to minors or not, the PREVALENCE may still exist. I agree that C does not attack the conclusion directly, if my reasoning is right, whereas D does that directly. I'd be grateful that if anybody could shed some light on my issue. Thanks

aragonn · Answer

jawele

Here are few thing i want to suggest you.
1. Question is "In assessing the doctor’s assertion" --- So you have to focus on doctor’s assertion , which is Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors would help to reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents. 
2. Now this assertion become your Scope and your answer must explain this assertion and only this assertion. Any thing that is not doing this will be out of scope.Now lets look at C now. 
 
Now ask your self is anyways affecting the problem in hand. Frankly other things are less common. and not affecting the scope. Other choices are explained above. Hope this helped.

aragonn · Answer

Similar type of question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/700-doctor-r ... 96640.html

akshaykotha · Answer

I eliminated D considering: If the law exists, then why will they purchase and for whom will they purchase? Even if they purchase, they need not mention for whom they are purchasing. Can someone quote on this?

taniad · Answer

The main conclusion is a law that prevents minors buying headphones.

a. percentage of federal legislators who would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors.
 Irrelevant.

b. The number of adolescents who use headphones on a regular basis but do not suffer from hearing loss.
 Irrelevant, because it is concluded in the premise that adolescents are 3 times likely to suffer hearing loss anyway
 
c. The extent to which other common adolescent behaviors contribute to hearing loss. 
 Premise has already concluded that adoescents who use headphones regularly have hearing loss issues in the future- the argument is on headphones.

d. The percentage of parents who would refuse to purchase headphones for their adolescent children.
 Law will prohibit sale of headphones to minors, so what is the possibility of a parent, an adult, who can legally buy the headphone and give it to a minor? Correct.

e. The difference in level of hearing loss between adults who have used headphones since adolescence and those who began using headphones as adults.
 Irrelevant as it is comparing 2 different demographics.

rahul6019 · Answer

Inducing this law will prohibit headphone sales to minors but not to their parents. If parents give in to demands of their children, these children will still get headphones by indirect means making the proposal weak. If not, the proposal will not be affected.

800Dreamer · Answer

Hi,
What if those minors use someone else headphones? Then the parents' refusal wont matter here.
I rejected this thinking that there might be other sources by which they can use headphones. Why it is assumed that only parents will provide headphones to them?

randarth · Answer

How would the answer to D help us evaluate the success of the legislation? We would rather want to know the change in percentage of parents who would buy, isn't it?

altairahmad · Answer

Flawed question.

C can very easily be the answer.

The argument states that the legislation 'would help to reduce the prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents'. This means that the argument is assuming that the prevalent cause of hearing loss among adolescents is the use of headphones.

Knowing the extent of other causes of hearing loss among adolescents is critical to the argument. If headphone usage among adolescents accounts for just 1% of overall hearing loss among adolescents then the legislation will do no good. However, if it accounts for a larger percentage e.g 70% then it is indeed a prevalent cause and will help solve the 'prevalent' cause.

Higher expectations from MGMAT. I would like to know if this question has been retired.

Is this really MGMAT question ? The MGMAT forum has a very different version of this question.

KeyurJoshi · Answer

Prohibition of sales of headphone to minors ==> Reduce hearing loss in adolescents
In assessing the doctor’s assertion, it would be most useful to know which of the following?

TESTING TWO EXTREMES OF A SITUATION SHOULD GIVE US CONTRASTING RESULTS

a. percentage of federal legislators who would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of headphones to minors. =  If 1% of legislators vote or 100% vote for the bill is out of scope.

b. The number of adolescents who use headphones on a regular basis but do not suffer from hearing loss. = 
 If out of 100 adolescents who use headphones, 
Only 3 experience hearing loss, so if we prohibit sale of headphones = we can still reduce that number of hearing losses.
and on the other hand, lets say, 90 experience hearing loss = we can still reduce that number, so this does not affect our conclusion.

c. The extent to which other common adolescent behaviors contribute to hearing loss. =  other behaviours are out of scope.

d. The percentage of parents who would refuse to purchase headphones for their adolescent children. = 
 If out of 100 parents with adolescent kids using headphones ,
Only 1% viz. 1 parent refuses to purchase headphones for adolescent child => Other 99 parents will allow it and number cannot be decreased.
and lets say, 99% i.e. 99 parents refuse to buy it for their kids => Then the number of hearing loss can be decreased substantially. 
 
e. The difference in level of hearing loss between adults who have used headphones since adolescence and those who began using headphones as adults. =  Comparing levels of hearing loss in adults who used headphones as adolescent and adults who started using headphones as adults is OUT OF SCOPE.

bojunk · Answer

Agree with  altairahmad

Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who listen to music on headpho

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

Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who listen to music on headpho

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