A research on early language development concluded that children born

Question

A research on early language development concluded that children born in English-speaking countries acquire better skills in English by the age of 5 than children born in non-English-speaking countries. Therefore, if a newly married couple from a non- English-speaking country were to begin their family in an English-speaking country and stay there until their children turn at least 5, their children are expected to acquire better skills in English than they would likely have acquired if the family had continued to stay in its home country.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?

a. Experts in early language development do not believe that children born in English-speaking countries acquire better skills in English by the age of 5 than children born in non-English-speaking countries.

b. The research mentioned was carried out with only 100 children and is, therefore, statistically unreliable.

c. The language spoken at home plays a crucial role in a child's early language development.

d. There are some parents from non-English-speaking countries who speak better English than some parents from English- speaking countries.

e. Staying in an English-speaking country gives better exposure to English than staying in a non-English-speaking country, and thus improves one's skills in English.

pintukr · Answer

A research on early language development concluded that children born in English-speaking countries acquire better skills in English by the age of 5 than children born in non-English-speaking countries. Therefore, if a newly married couple from a non- English-speaking country were to begin their family in an English-speaking country and stay there until their children turn at least 5, their children are expected to acquire better skills in English than they would likely have acquired if the family had continued to stay in its home country.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?

a. Experts in early language development do not believe that children born in English-speaking countries acquire better skills in English by the age of 5 than children born in non-English-speaking countries.
 Research results vs Experts' understanding can't be compared apple-to-apple

b. The research mentioned was carried out with only 100 children and is, therefore, statistically unreliable.
 It's a 'Weakener' ; however not as strong as an alternate factor, if identified other than the location (ie, birth in English-speaking countries)

c. The language spoken at home plays a crucial role in a child's early language development.
  High-degree 'Weakener' as compared to option (B), since it lists an alternate factor, iie, birth in English-speaking countries, responsible to children's fluency in English..hence, CORRECT answer

d. There are some parents from non-English-speaking countries who speak better English than some parents from English- speaking countries.
 Out of scope answer

e. Staying in an English-speaking country gives better exposure to English than staying in a non-English-speaking country, and thus improves one's skills in English.
 'Strengthener', rather than 'Weakener'

(C) is the CORRECT answer

yogesh122 · Answer

I could not got that how option (C) acts only as a weakener. It can also act as a strengthener if a family, irrespective of the country where it live, speaks English at home. IMO this a choice which is  evaluating the argument  and moves toward either sides. Option (B) in this case is straightforward Weakener.  Bunuel   bb   GMATNinja  Pls guide.

getsetfly · Answer

Please shed some light on this question

ReedArnoldMPREP · Answer

I'll explain my thoughts as I go through this question:

First thing I do is read to question:

So this is a 'weaken the argument question, so I know I'm going to go to the passage and find a conclusion and some premises that support it. So I go to the passage:

So the conclusion is that non-english speakers moving to an english country will have kids that get better skills than if they'd stayed in their home country. The premise is that children born in English speaking countries acquire better skills in English than children born in non-English speaking countries.

Okay, now, before going to the answers, I engage in the 'critical reasoning' part of critical reasoning!

First thing I notice is that this argument is fundamentally about causality (as many CR arguments are):

The argument is firstly presuming that living in an English speaking country *causes* better English speaking skills, when the argument only notes that such things are *correlated*.

Now, I always take a moment to *doubt the conclusion*. So here, maybe moving to an English speaking country will NOT cause these children to learn English better than they would have in their home country.

But how could that be true, GIVEN THAT THE PREMISE is true? Well, this is where the causation/correlation thinking comes in.

Sure, children in English speaking countries learn English better than children in Non-English speaking countries, but could there be a different reason than the language of the *country?* One thing that really jumps out to me is the language of the *parents*. What if THAT is what determines the children's acquisition of language? Parents in english speaking countries will tend to be more skilled in English. Perhaps even if they moved to a non-english speaking country, their children would STILL get the same amount of 'skills.'

So I'm looking for an answer that deals with this notion:

Well... Okay, experts may think that, but the passage has already asserted that they do. I don't want to doubt that premise. I guess the experts are wrong.

This actually seems like it should be a good answer... but it doesn't seem like a GMAT answer. (In fact, neither does answer A...) I feel like both A and B are 'trap' answers created by someone who knows some basics about GMAT CR, but doesn't quite have a feel for how the official test really creates trap answers.

This is on track with what I was thinking. It's not the language spoken by the country that determines what skills are developed, it's the language spoken *at home*.

Exceptions to a trend do not disprove a trend.

This would strengthen the argument, if anything.

I have confirmed that 'c' is the right answer.

In general, this CR argument feels like a pretty realistic GMAT argument. The answer choices don't feel totally realistic, though--however, I think everything is good enough that this is valuable question to review and study.

Invincible_147 · Answer

Either the question or the answer is wrong.

Gemmie · Answer

The correct answer is  c. The language spoken at home plays a crucial role in a child's early language development.

The conclusion in the passage is based on the idea that merely living in an English-speaking country will lead to better English skills by the age of 5 for children from non-English-speaking backgrounds. However, if the language spoken at home plays a crucial role in a child's early language development, this could weaken the argument.

If the family continues to speak their native language at home, the children might not gain the same level of exposure to English, despite living in an English-speaking country. This would challenge the assumption that living in an English-speaking country alone is sufficient to ensure better English skills by the age of 5.

---

Why the Other Options Don't Weaken the Argument as Strongly:ư

a. Experts in early language development do not believe that children born in English-speaking countries acquire better skills in English by the age of 5 than children born in non-English-speaking countries. 
This option disputes the initial research but doesn't directly address the specific scenario of moving to an English-speaking country. It's more about questioning the research's validity rather than weakening the conclusion of the specific situation described in the passage.

b. The research mentioned was carried out with only 100 children and is, therefore, statistically unreliable. 
This option questions the reliability of the research but doesn't specifically weaken the logic of the conclusion drawn about the impact of moving to an English-speaking country.

d. There are some parents from non-English-speaking countries who speak better English than some parents from English-speaking countries. 
This is more of an exception to the rule rather than a factor that generally weakens the argument. It doesn't address the general trend or logic of the passage.

e. Staying in an English-speaking country gives better exposure to English than staying in a non-English-speaking country, and thus improves one's skills in English. 
This option actually strengthens the conclusion rather than weakening it.

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 research on early language development concluded that children born

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 research on early language development concluded that children born

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