Researchers have discovered that parents who made their children, when

Question

Researchers have discovered that parents who made their children, when they were between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of Pete Sampras, the legendary tennis player, had children who grew up to be much better tennis players than children of parents who did not do so. The researchers, thus, concluded that parents who wish to make their children pursue tennis should make their children, when they are between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of legendary tennis players.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?

(A) Pete Sampras was one of the greatest tennis players of all times and even modern tennis greats try to emulate him by watching his videos.

(B) When children, who are between 2 and 10 years of age, watch Pete Sampras play, the neurons in their brains make subconscious connections as a result of which these children are able to apply some of Pete Sampras’ playing style in their own game of tennis at a later stage in life.

(C) Children whose parents made them watch videos of Pete Sampras when these children were more than 10 years of age also saw a marked improvement in their children’s ability to play tennis.

(D) Parents who made their children, when they were between 2 and 10 years of age, watch videos of other legendary tennis players also reported that their children developed into excellent tennis players.

(E) Some children whose parents did not expose them to videos of any tennis players also developed into excellent tennis players later in life.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Research shows that when kids watched videos of Pete Sampras, they became much better tennis players than children of parents who did not do so.

Conclusion: To make children great at tennis, show them videos of legendary tennis players.

We need to strengthen the conclusion that showing videos of legendary tennis players will make kids great at tennis. The research only supports seeing Pete Sampras' matches.

Option (D) tells us that watching matches of other legendary tennis players is also beneficial. This strengthens the conclusion that watching matches of legendary tennis players will make kids good at tennis.

(B) When children, who are between 2 and 10 years of age, watch Pete Sampras play, the neurons in their brains make subconscious connections as a result of which these children are able to apply some of Pete Sampras’ playing style in their own game of tennis at a later stage in life.

Option (B) tells us why children who watch matches of Pete Sampras are able to do better. But that does not mean that the same thing will happen when kids watch matches of other legendary players too.
Then does this help our conclusion that to make children great at tennis, show them videos of legendary tennis players? No. It just explains why researchers observe that kids who watch Pete Sampras' matches do well in tennis. Does the same thing happen with other legendary players too? We are not given.

Answer (D)

Sumi1010 · Answer

Evidence -  The parents who made their children, when they were between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of Pete Sampras, had children who grew up to be much better tennis players than children of parents who did not do so.

Conclusion -  The parents who wish to make their children pursue tennis should make their children, when they are between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of legendary tennis players.

Prethink -  What could be the reason for such children to be better tennis players than others just by watching videos? Maybe they learn or adapt something from the video .

(A) Pete Sampras was one of the greatest tennis players of all times and even modern tennis greats try to emulate him by watching his videos.
 The greatness of Sampras does not explain the reason why the children turn to be a better player. Emulating his game can't explain the success of it. 
(B) When children, who are between 2 and 10 years of age, watch Pete Sampras play, the neurons in their brains make subconscious connections as a result of which these children are able to apply some of Pete Sampras’ playing style  in their own game  of tennis at a later stage in life.
 Looks correct. The children inherits Sampras style in their own game.  
(C) Children whose parents made them watch videos of Pete Sampras when these children were  more than 10 year s of age also saw a marked improvement in their children’s ability to play tennis.
 The children aged above 10 are not in the context of the argument. 
(D) Parents who made their children, when they were between 2 and 10 years of age, watch videos of  other legendary tennis players  also reported that their children developed into excellent tennis players.
 Although videos other legendary tennis players too might help the children, but does not help in explaining the reasoning.  
(E) Some children whose parents did not expose them to videos of any tennis players also developed into excellent tennis players later in life.
 This denigrate the importance of the Sampras' video and is  weakening  the argument.

IMO  B

DinoPen · Answer

Researchers have discovered that parents who made their children, when they were between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of Pete Sampras, the legendary tennis player, had children who grew up to be much better tennis players than children of parents who did not do so. The researchers, thus, concluded that parents who wish to make their children pursue tennis should make their children, when they are between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of legendary tennis players.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?

Premise: Children that watch Pete Sampras become good tennis players.
Conclusion: Therefore, watch legendary tennis players if pursuing tennis.

(A) Pete Sampras was one of the greatest tennis players of all times and even modern tennis greats try to emulate him by watching his videos.
 This is irrelevant since we are focused on a specific audience: children.

(B) When children, who are between 2 and 10 years of age, watch Pete Sampras play, the neurons in their brains make subconscious connections as a result of which these children are able to apply some of Pete Sampras’ playing style in their own game of tennis at a later stage in life.
 Yes! This supports the conclusion as to why children should watch good tennis players if they wish to become good.

(C) Children whose parents made them watch videos of Pete Sampras when these children were more than 10 years of age also saw a marked improvement in their children’s ability to play tennis.
 This is outside of age range of 2-10. In fact, this choice weakens the conclusion. Out.

(D) Parents who made their children, when they were between 2 and 10 years of age, watch videos of other legendary tennis players also reported that their children developed into excellent tennis players.
 This subtly weakens the conclusion since the children watched  other  legendary tennis players not  Pete Sampras

(E) Some children whose parents did not expose them to videos of any tennis players also developed into excellent tennis players later in life.
 This weakens the argument that the child does not have to be between the ranges of 2-10. out.

carouselambra · Answer

Researchers have discovered that parents who made their children, when they were between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of Pete Sampras, the legendary tennis player, had children who grew up to be much better tennis players than children of parents who did not do so. The researchers, thus, concluded that parents who wish to make their children pursue tennis should make their children, when they are between the ages of 2 and 10, watch videos of legendary tennis players.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?
 
Cause: watch videos of Pete Sampras between the ages of 2 and 10
Effect: better tennis players than children of parents who did not do so 
Aim : Strenghten

(A) Pete Sampras was one of the greatest tennis players of all times and even modern tennis greats try to emulate him by watching his videos.
This is a fact - does not strengthen.

(B) When children, who are between 2 and 10 years of age, watch Pete Sampras play, the neurons in their brains make subconscious connections as a result of which these children are able to apply some of Pete Sampras’ playing style in their own game of tennis at a later stage in life.
 Correct - Strengthens the argument.
 
(C) Children whose parents made them watch videos of Pete Sampras when these children were more than 10 years of age also saw a marked improvement in their children’s ability to play tennis.
Weakens

(D) Parents who made their children, when they were between 2 and 10 years of age, watch videos of other legendary tennis players also reported that their children developed into excellent tennis players.
Weakens

(E) Some children whose parents did not expose them to videos of any tennis players also developed into excellent tennis players later in life.
Weakens

RashmikaAnegama · Answer

B and D are contenders.

IMO, the answer is D because

the conclusion of the given argument :
....concluded that parents who wish to make their children pursue tennis should make their children, when they are between the ages of 2 and 10,  watch videos of legendary tennis players.

Although the argument talked about Pete Sampras, the conclusion is - legendary tennis players, not only of Pete Sampras, which made me choose D as an option.

If not D, then B is the obvious answer.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Answer: D

There is a subtle scope shift taking place in the argument. While the evidence talks about Pete Sampras, the conclusion talks about legendary tennis players in general. The assumption, then, has to be that what applies to Sampras, applies to all legendary tennis players.  D states this best and should be the correct answer.

(A) The conclusion is not about Pete Sampras but about legendary tennis players in general. This option fails to bring out the connection between the two.

(B) Same as A.

(C) Same as A.

(E) If anything, this option can weaken the argument by suggesting that there is no real connection between watching Pete Sampras play and children developing into great tennis players.

Nipungupta9081 · Answer

GMATNinja   VeritasKarishma  if you guys can provide alternate explanation by B is wrong and D is correct

Posted from my mobile device

TarunKumar1234 · Answer

Strengthening- We have to make conclusion strong. Conclusion- For being better tennis player, children must watch videos of legendary tennis players, between 2 to 10 age.

(A) Pete Sampras was one of the greatest tennis players of all times and even modern tennis greats try to emulate him by watching his videos. -> Incorrect. Conclusion is about children.

(B) When children, who are between 2 and 10 years of age, watch Pete Sampras play, the neurons in their brains make subconscious connections as a result of which these children are able to apply some of Pete Sampras’ playing style in their own game of tennis at a later stage in life. -> subconscious mind is correct, but "Pete Sampras’ playing style" is not we are talking in conclusion.

(C) Children whose parents made them watch videos of Pete Sampras when these children were more than 10 years of age also saw a marked improvement in their children’s ability to play tennis. -> It is weakening the conclusion.

(D) Parents who made their children, when they were between 2 and 10 years of age, watch videos of other legendary tennis players also reported that their children developed into excellent tennis players. ->It is better than B. Correct.

(E) Some children whose parents did not expose them to videos of any tennis players also developed into excellent tennis players later in life. -> Weakening.

So, I think D.

KeyurJoshi · Answer

Parents made kids (2 to 10 yrs) watch PS (legend) ==> Kids turned out to be better players (than the kids whose parents did not make them watch PS)

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?

(A)  So what? Yeah we get it PS was a legend but what about watching videos of tennis players except PS ? 
(B)  Again PS was a great player and watching his game would make your kid a master(probably) with all these things happening to him when he watches the his games, but what about other players? 
(C)  Says, watching PS games to get better is not restricted to age but again the same problem as before. 
(E)  If E is true, Well then there is no point in watching PS videos or any other legend tennis player's videos.  
D is correct. I hope somebody finds this useful.

IanStewart · Answer

If you ask: what kind of parents are forcing their children to watch Pete Sampras videos? Presumably parents who are interested in tennis. So if you then ask: which children are more likely to play tennis, and to take tennis lessons -- the children who are forced to watch Sampras videos, or the children who aren't? I think you'd expect that almost all of the children forced to watch Sampras were also forced to play tennis, and a much smaller fraction of the other children played tennis. So that's the most obvious explanation for the conclusion: the kids who watched Sampras all played tennis, while a lot of the other kids didn't, and of course if you have never played tennis, you're likely not going to be very good at it.

Since we have a much more plausible explanation for the conclusion than "the videos have some subliminal effect that turns children into tennis stars later in life", we absolutely need an answer that somehow connects the video-watching itself with tennis ability. So answer B has to be right. There is a problem with the question, though, because the argument does draw a conclusion about watching videos of "legendary tennis players" in general, not about watching Sampras in particular, so we'd also like some justification for extending the conclusion from Sampras alone to "legendary tennis players", and answer D does that. So D is also a good answer here. A real GMAT question would never have two right answers, so this is not a good question, but if we truly want the answer that "most strengthens" the argument, to my way of seeing things, that's unquestionably B.

RICHA1189 · Answer

Conclusion - The researchers, thus, concluded that parents who wish to make their children pursue tennis should make their children, when they are between the ages of 2 and 10,  watch videos of legendary tennis players.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?

(A) Pete Sampras was one of the greatest tennis players of all times and even modern tennis greats try to emulate him by watching his videos. Neutral

(B) When children, who are between 2 and 10 years of age,  watch Pete Sampras play , the neurons in their brains make subconscious connections as a result of which these children are able to apply some of Pete Sampras’ playing style in their own game of tennis at a later stage in life.  Focus is on all legendary tennis players.

(C) Children whose parents made them watch videos of Pete Sampras when these children were more than 10 years of age also saw a marked improvement in their children’s ability to play tennis.  Weakener

(D) Parents who made their children, when they were between 2 and 10 years of age, watch videos of other legendary tennis players also reported that their children developed into excellent tennis players.  Correct answer choice which includes all the legendary tennis players

(E) Some children whose parents did not expose them to videos of any tennis players also developed into excellent tennis players later in life.  Weakner

Arindamad · Answer

Isn’t option d repetition if the conclusion

Posted from my mobile device

JoeKan1234 · Answer

The potential weakness of the conclusion is generalization. The passage uses one specific case to prove watching videos of legendary  other  tennis players also help children pursue tennis. However, D proves the generalization wrong. D attacks the weakness of the passage. Thus, this option strengthens the conclusion.

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.

Researchers have discovered that parents who made their children, when

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

Researchers have discovered that parents who made their children, when

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