Until recently it was believed that weight training did not help child

Question

Until recently it was believed that weight training did not help children but in fact did harm and possibly stunted their growth. A new study has determined that weight training among children between ages 6 and 18 helped them grow stronger even though they did not gain muscle mass like adults. Therefore, our government should require weight training for all children in public schools who are between the ages of 6 and 18.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) The school year is only nine months of the year, and with children, weight training must be done on a consistent basis all year round. A home-based program is required for success.

(B) Since the children do not gain muscle mass, measuring their progress will be difficult without the specialized instruments used in the study.

(C) The study was performed with subjects from only one geographic location where weight training is more culturally acceptable.

(D) The gain in strength over a nine-month school year will be minimal. It takes at least a year for the children to show significant results from
weight training.

(E) Children do not respond positively to government requirements and low morale may adversely affect results of any government-instituted weight training requirements.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Answer: A

STEP 1: Read the question and identify your task. 
This is a Weaken question. You must find among the answers the statement that “most seriously” weakens the argument.

STEP 2: Read the argument with your task in mind. 
The statement argues that the government should require weight training in public schools for all children between ages 6 and 18 based on a new study.

STEP 3: Know what you’re looking for. 
You expect that the correct answer will be a statement that seriously undermines some aspect of this recommendation to the government.

STEP 4: Read every word of every answer choice. 
Answer A looks very likely to be your answer since it says that a school-based program will be ineffective and that a home-based program is what is required for real success. You need to read through the remainder of the answers to be sure. Answer B puts a damper on the ability to measure progress, but it does not undermine the benefits of the program or the recommendation. Answer C adds facts about the study, but the particulars are not the kind that would undermine the results of the study. Answer D only speaks to the time it takes to notice measurable results, which does not change the fact that such weight training is beneficial and thus does not weaken the argument. Finally, answer E might give you pause. Yes, there might be some health risks to weight training at such a young age and adding those tests to the study might have been helpful, but the results might have been positive as well. You do not have enough information to know and thus, this answer does not weaken the argument more than answer A. Answer A is the correct choice.

sanjitscorps18 · Answer

Not sure about this.

Option E directly attacks the recommendation that the government should runnthis program. For me it is a better choice than A which introduces home based sessions as a new variable.

We usually discard options that may go outside of the scope of the argument.

Posted from my mobile device

Simbamalik · Answer

Explanation for option E is not what is mentioned in option E, please check 
 answer E might give you pause. Yes, there might be some health risks to weight training at such a young age and adding those tests to the study might have been helpful, but the results might have been positive as well

Anandanwar · Answer

Hello,
I need some help here.
This is how I see it:
Choice A: says that programs will have to be home based. But arguments says government should bring in requirements. It does not say anything about school based or home based programs. Schools may allow home based programs on basis of certificate, etc.
Choice E: Shows that weight training may have negative consequences.

Choice E seemed better to me because of above reasons.

Could anyone throw some more light on this so that I can get the error in my reasoning?

Regards,
Ankit

KarishmaB · Answer

Don't know the source of this question but it is certainly debatable. Both (A) and (E) are weakeners. 
What you mentioned about option (A) is something I had evaluated too but I arrived at the conclusion that they mean to keep the program in school because they specifically say 'public schools.' If it were to be a program mandated by the Govt for kids between the ages 6 to 18 with the option of conducting it at home or school, public schools would not have been mentioned. It would have been mandated for all children. They mention public schools because the Govt. cannot interfere in the running of private schools. 
Also, 'requiring' children to do weight training at home wouldn't make sense because there is no way to enforce it. In schools, one can schedule separate time for the program and ensure that kids attend it.

Scholar94 · Answer

After reading the argument, a prephase like this should help see why A is the correct answer choices:

,- We need an answer choice that says that government should not institute the requirements because if they do they won't necessarily achieve their aim  ...Looking at option A, it clearly states reason why instituting the requirement will not yield the intended result. It then follow up with an alternative.

Option E- The argument is not about whether these set of students will follow the requirement or not. So,the statement weakens wrong conclusion

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
Until recently it was believed that weight training did not help children but in fact did harm and possibly stunted their growth. - General view. 
A new study has determined that weight training among children between ages 6 and 18 helped them grow stronger even though they did not gain muscle mass like adults. - Premise. 
Therefore, our government should require weight training for all children in public schools who are between the ages of 6 and 18. - Conclusion. So, what's the end objective/goal of this mandate? So the children can grow stronger. What will weaken it? If somehow we can know that even after this mandate the end result is not achieved? Yes. that would weaken the efficacy of the proposed plan.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) The school year is only nine months of the year, and with children, weight training must be done on a consistent basis all year round. A home-based program is required for success. - Means that home training is the necessary condition. So, just mandating it in schools will not help achieve the end goal, which is the children can grow stronger.

(B) Since the children do not gain muscle mass, measuring their progress will be difficult without the specialized instruments used in the study. - measuring their progress is out of scope.

(C) The study was performed with subjects from only one geographic location where weight training is more culturally acceptable. - But it could still be beneficial. It tries to play on the sampling bias but fails to address the main issue.

(D) The gain in strength over a nine-month school year will be minimal. It takes at least a year for the children to show significant results from
weight training. - Even if minimal, if they do over the years, they can still benefit.

(E) Children do not respond positively to government requirements and low morale may adversely affect results of any government-instituted weight training requirements. - how children respond is out of scope. Even if children resist and they also resist studying, but studying could still be beneficial. Isn't it?

dishantarora16 · Answer

we had to weaken the fact that weight training will benefit the children

that_mechguy · Answer

But it is nowhere mentioned that the program is only for one year, what if a child who is currently 6 years of age goes through the program till he is 18?

Until recently it was believed that weight training did not help child

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

Until recently it was believed that weight training did not help child

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