Each child in a group of children of various ages was put in a room t

Question

Each child in a group of children of various ages was put in a room to play with a small teddy bear and a large toy model of a mountain with various geographic features such as a town and a forest. After the children had played with the toys for a while, a researcher would enter the room, place the bear on the model and then ask the child what the bear could see. Most older children would describe the landscape directly in front of the bear; most younger children would describe what was directly in front of the child. Therefore, researchers concluded, younger children lack the ability to see what another being's perspective is.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?

a) Children of all ages that are affected by autism also describe what is directly in front of them when asked what the bear sees.
b) Researchers ran another experiment where they took a tall narrow glass and a short wide glass and poured an equal amount of liquid back and forth between them. Older children would say that the amount of liquid stayed the same. Younger children would say that there was more in the tall narrow glass.
c) Younger children often did not understand the question being asked; when they were asked the more simple question "what is in front of the bear?", they would answer the same as the older children.
d) Male and female children that were older would answer the question in generally the same manner.
e) Older children are less likely to play with teddy bears every day than are younger children.

bartk · Answer

I think this question is not really GMAT-style and the answer choices are...weird. IMO you'll not see something like that on the actual test.

But that's OK, let's take a look.

Conclusion:  Younger children lack the ability to see what another being's perspective is.

It doesn't affect the conclusion. The author is concerned with an ability to see from someone else's perspective in two different age groups: young children and older children. Children with autism are a special case and form another group that we're not interested in. It can be true, that autistic kids AND younger children (without autism) lack this ability, and the argument wouldn't be affected.

The "glass experiment" doesn't include "seeing from someone else's perspective" thing and tests different abilities. Hence, we can't use it to weaken author's conclusion.

Choice C suggests that there is another factor that may have caused the differences between younger and older children. If younger children simply didn't understand the question, we can't conclude that they gave the wrong answer because they "lack the ability to see what another being's perspective is". This definitely weakens author's conclusion.

Unnecessary differentiation in the older group. We are concerned with younger vs older children differences, not with male vs female.

I can't tell how experience in playing with teddy bears would affect one's ability to put oneself in someone else's shoes. Irrelevant.

The winner is C!

globaldesi · Answer

Kaplan official answer:

Identify the Question Type:

Since it asks for something to weaken the conclusion, this is a Weaken question.

Untangle the Stimulus:

A study showed that when asked what a stuffed bear would be able to see, older children answered accurately, while younger children answered with what they themselves could see. From this evidence, scientists concluded that young children could not understand another being's perspective.

Predict the Answer:

The central assumption of the argument is that there is not some other explanation for why younger children did not describe the landscape in front of the bear. To weaken this argument, the correct answer should show there is another reason for the younger children's answers and that they can, in fact, recognize another perspective.

Evaluate the Choices:

(C) matches the prediction. If it's true, then the children might be able to see from someone else's perspective – they simply could not understand the question being asked.

(A) is irrelevant to the conclusion; it simply describes another class of children that may not be able to understand another being's perspective, but that doesn't have any effect on the scientists' conclusion.

(B) has nothing to do with the ability to see what someone else's perspective is; it simply shows another issue young children may have with perception.

A distinction between male and female children has no effect on the conclusion, which rests on age, so (D) is incorrect.

(E) does not weaken the conclusion, as the amount of time children play with teddy bears has no bearing on whether they understand the bears' perspective.

TAKEAWAY: When the evidence is a scientific study, think about whether the results might actually support a different conclusion than the one made.

Mankodim · Answer

Synopsis: Younger children answer things from their perspective & older children see it from the bear's. If we have to find a statement that nullifies the assumption, the only one that fits the bill is C. If the younger children are not able to understand the question properly, they cannot give the correct answer. Infact, if the question is rephrased, they are able to answer the question in a correct sense. This weakens the assumption that the younger children are not able to understand the perspective.

monk123 · Answer

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion above?
 
CONCLUSION- younger children lack the ability to see what another being's perspective is.
REASONING- We need to find out the statement that shows younger children do not lack the ability. OR There is some other cause or reason.

a) Children of all ages that are  affected by autism  also describe what is directly in front of them when asked what the bear sees. -  out of scope; we are not talking about children affected by autism here. 
b)  Researchers ran another experiment  where they took a tall narrow glass and a short wide glass and poured an equal amount of liquid back and forth between them. Older children would say that the amount of liquid stayed the same. Younger children would say that there was more in the tall narrow glass. -  no such comparison; we cannot compare the given experiment with the grass one 
c) Younger children often did not understand the question being asked; when they were asked the more simple question "what is in front of the bear?", they would answer the same as the older children. -   CORRECT; It does weaken the conclusion that younger children lack the ability to see what another being's perspective is.  
d)  Male and female children  that were older would answer the question in generally the same manner. -  out of scope 
e) Older children are less likely to  play with teddy bears  every day than are younger children.-  out of scope

Anshurana · Answer

a) Children of all ages that are affected by autism also describe what is directly in front of them when asked what the bear sees. -   Totally irrelevant, OUT OF SCOPE, Argument is talking about younger and older children  
b) Researchers ran another experiment where they took a tall narrow glass and a short wide glass and poured an equal amount of liquid back and forth between them. Older children would say that the amount of liquid stayed the same. Younger children would say that there was more in the tall narrow glass.- Perfect shell game,  WRONG ANSWER  
c) Younger children often did not understand the question being asked; when they were asked the more simple question "what is in front of the bear?", they would answer the same as the older children. -   CORRECT , its weakening the researcher's conclusion by saying the question was complicated and younger children understand simpler question, also young children do not lack ability to see other prespective  
d) Male and female children that were older would answer the question in generally the same manner.--  No discussion of male and female children -  OUT OF SCOPE  
e) Older children are less likely to play with teddy bears every day than are younger children. -  irrelevant and not helping us to weaken researcher's 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.

Each child in a group of children of various ages was put in a room t

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

Each child in a group of children of various ages was put in a room t

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