After studying a random sample of 1024 individuals who had smoked dail

Question

Competition Mode Question

After studying a random sample of 1024 individuals who had smoked daily for at least three years and comparing the results of this study with the results of a study of 1024 individuals who had never smoked, a group of researchers concluded that habitual smoking causes increased difficulties in concentrating.

Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the researchers' conclusion?

(A) The addiction to smoking and the cravings this addiction engenders is often on the mind of habitual smokers.

(B) Some non-smokers with attention deficit disorder (ADD), which causes an inability to concentrate, display even less ability to concentrate than some smokers.

(C) A separate research study found that smokers and non-smokers exhibited statistically significant differences in their incarceration rates.

(D) After developing a severe addiction to smoking for fifteen years, the ability of many individuals to concentrate is decreased.

(E) A separate research study found that individuals with preexisting attention and concentration disorders exhibited significantly higher rates of trying cigarettes and subsequently becoming addicted to smoking.

Tracy95 · Answer

A causal relationship   can be damaged by pointing out that actually, it is B that causes A. 
-> Apply this pattern to the argument: It is concluded that   causes  . So if we could show the reverse, we can undermine the original argument. 
=> E accurately does this job. It shows a study which found that preexisting concentration problems in people lead them to try cigarettes and become addicted to smoking.  E is correct .

B is really tempting:  Some non-smokers with attention deficit disorder (ADD), which causes an inability to concentrate, display even less ability to concentrate than some smokers.   But B only talks about SOME non-smokers -> little or no justification to weaken the argument 
A does nothing to tackle the causal relationship
C is irrelevant
D strengthens the argument

exc4libur · Answer

ARGUMENT
  Researchers concluded that a group of smokers vs non-smokers exhibited increased difficulties concentrating.
  Those who smoke don't have some issue with concentrating before smoking, vs non-smokers who usually dont have this.

Ans (E)  Smokers have problems concentrating because of preexisting conditions.

madgmat2019 · Answer

From statement we can conclude that - habitual smoking causes increased difficulties in concentrating

so the weakener can be something reverse: that they already have a concentration deficiency before smoking.

(E) A separate research study found that individuals with preexisting attention and concentration disorders exhibited significantly higher rates of trying cigarettes and subsequently becoming addicted to smoking............matches thia pre-thinking

OA:E

abhishekdadarwal2009 · Answer

*This is a weaken question*

So, to weaken try these in mind

To weaken -

1.Show causality is reversed,or
2.Show cause happend but effect did not,or
3.Something other than state premise caused an event(something else acted other than what we know.)

After studying a random sample of 1024 individuals who had smoked daily for at least three years and comparing the results of this study with the results of a study of 1024 individuals who had never smoked, a group of researchers concluded that habitual smoking causes increased difficulties in concentrating.

Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the researchers' conclusion?

(A) The addiction to smoking and the cravings this addiction engenders is often on the mind of habitual smokers. 
This is a strengthener as it explains the reason why smokers lack concentration.

(B) Some non-smokers with attention deficit disorder (ADD), which causes an inability to concentrate, display even less ability to concentrate than some smokers. 
those non smoker who have disorder is a special group which is not considered in the study.Out of scope.

(C) A separate research study found that smokers and non-smokers exhibited statistically significant differences in their incarceration rates. 
incarceration rates? seperate study? out of scope!

(D) After developing a severe addiction to smoking for fifteen years, the ability of many individuals to concentrate is decreased. 
People who have been smoking for more than 15 years are out of scope.

(E) A separate research study found that individuals with preexisting attention and concentration disorders exhibited significantly higher rates of trying cigarettes and subsequently becoming addicted to smoking .Correct reversal of causality and this shows that lack of concentration leads to smoking habit and that the habit of smoking did not cause lack of concentration.

unraveled · Answer

After studying a random sample of 1024 individuals who had smoked daily for at least three years and comparing the results of this study with the results of a study of 1024 individuals who had never smoked, a group of researchers concluded that habitual smoking causes increased difficulties in concentrating.
Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the researchers' conclusion?

(A) The addiction to smoking and the cravings this addiction engenders is often on the mind of habitual smokers. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(B) Some non-smokers with attention deficit disorder (ADD), which causes an inability to concentrate, display even less ability to concentrate than some smokers. - WRONG. The degree of comparison in the ability to concentrate is not discussed. Irrelevant.

(C) A separate research study found that smokers and non-smokers exhibited statistically significant differences in their incarceration rates. - WRONG. Rather strengthens somewhat but only with assumptions made. Otherwise irrelevant.

(D) After developing a severe addiction to smoking for fifteen years, the ability of many individuals to concentrate is decreased. - WRONG. Explains the causality and thus strengthens the argument.

(E) A separate research study found that individuals with preexisting attention and concentration disorders exhibited significantly higher rates of trying cigarettes and subsequently becoming addicted to smoking. - CORRECT. Reverses the causality and thus weakens.

IMO Answer E.

Archit3110 · Answer

conclusion:a group of researchers concluded that habitual smoking causes increased difficulties in concentrating.
IMO E ; A separate research study found that individuals with preexisting attention and concentration disorders exhibited significantly higher rates of trying cigarettes and subsequently becoming addicted to smoking.
this option provides an alternate reasoning and weakens the arguement.

After studying a random sample of 1024 individuals who had smoked daily for at least three years and comparing the results of this study with the results of a study of 1024 individuals who had never smoked, a group of researchers concluded that habitual smoking causes increased difficulties in concentrating.

Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the researchers' conclusion?

(A) The addiction to smoking and the cravings this addiction engenders is often on the mind of habitual smokers.

(B) Some non-smokers with attention deficit disorder (ADD), which causes an inability to concentrate, display even less ability to concentrate than some smokers.

(C) A separate research study found that smokers and non-smokers exhibited statistically significant differences in their incarceration rates.

(D) After developing a severe addiction to smoking for fifteen years, the ability of many individuals to concentrate is decreased.

(E) A separate research study found that individuals with preexisting attention and concentration disorders exhibited significantly higher rates of trying cigarettes and subsequently becoming addicted to smoking.

eakabuah · Answer

I will go with option E.

This argument can be analyzed as a cause and effect argument.
Cause: habitual smoking
Effect: difficulties in concentration.
Conclusion: habitual smoking causes difficulties in concentration.

The best weakener for cause and effect arguments is when the stated effect is rather proven to be the cause and the cause in the argument is the effect.

Option E states that a separate research study found that individuals with preexisting attention and concentration disorders exhibited significantly higher rates of trying cigarettes and subsequently becoming addicted to smoking. This actually reverses the cause and effect relation in the argument based on which a conclusion has been made that habitual smoking causes difficulties in concentration. So, option E, in my view, is the best weakener for the argument above.

Why not option B? The conclusion of the argument is not based on non-smokers. So although this option attacks a premise on which the argument is made, it does not weaken the argument as much as option E does.

RITESH24 · Answer

i would go with E because it might be the case when the lack of concentration is the reason to resort to smoking that is the reverse of what argument is trying to establish is true , therefore it weakens the argument

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The researchers' conclusion is: "habitual smoking causes increased difficulties in concentrating"

The group of researchers confuses correlation with causation. In other words, the group concludes that a correlation between smoking and an inability to concentrate implies that smoking causes an inability to concentrate. Perhaps it is the other way around and an inability to concentrate causes individuals to become distracted and take up smoking. Evidence to support this counter theory would weaken the researchers' conclusion.

A. This answer strengthens (not weakens) the original argument as it provides an explanation for how habitual smoking increases difficulties in concentrating after becoming hooked.

B. The answer deals only with some ADD non-smokers and some smokers so it does not provide any solid evidence and justification to weaken or reject the original argument. Further, it is not logical to compare the concentration ability of individuals with an attention deficit condition to other individuals who do not have an attention deficit condition.

C. The incarceration rate is irrelevant in determining the relationship between concentration and smoking. Whether smokers are incarcerated at higher or lower rates does not enable us to strengthen or weaken the causal relationship between smoking and concentration proposed in the original argument.

D. This strengthens (not weakens) the original argument as it intensifies the causal relationship between smoking and subsequent difficulties concentrating.

E. This additional study pinpoints that individuals with preexisting (or already established) concentration difficulties subsequently became addicted to smoking. This pinpoints that the smoking could not have caused the attention and concentration difficulties (as these difficulties already existed prior to becoming addicted).

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.

After studying a random sample of 1024 individuals who had smoked dail

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

After studying a random sample of 1024 individuals who had smoked dail

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