Many parents rigorously organize their children’s activities during pl

Question

Many parents rigorously organize their children’s activities during playtime, thinking that doing so will enhance their children’s cognitive development. But this belief is incorrect. To thoroughly structure a child’s playtime and expect this to produce a creative and resourceful child would be like expecting a good novel to be produced by someone who was told exactly what the plot and characters must be.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

(A) It takes for granted that if something is conducive to a certain goal it cannot also be conducive to some other goal.
(B) It overlooks the possibility that many children enjoy rigorously organized playtime.
(C) It takes a necessary condition for something’s enhancing a child’s creativity and resourcefulness to be a sufficient condition for its doing so.
(D) It fails to consider the possibility that being able to write a good novel requires something more than creativity and resourcefulness.
(E) It fails to consider the possibility that something could enhance a child’s overall cognitive development without enhancing the child’s creativity and resourcefulness.

egmat · Accepted Answer

The correct answer is option E.

Understanding the passage 
- Many parents rigorously organize their children's activities during playtime.
- Their belief: This leads to better cognitive development of their children.
- Conclusion/Author's claim: The above belief is incorrect.
- Author's logic: 
1. Thorough structuring of a child's playtime will not produce a creative and resourceful child.
2. Analogy used by the author: Expecting a good novel (cognitive development) to be produced by someone (child) who was told exactly what the plot and characters must be (no creativity, resourcefulness - as everything has been defined by the parents).

Question Stem:  
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

i.e. what is the flaw in the author's argument?

Analysis 
The author's conclusion is that the belief of the parents is wrong. What belief? the belief that structuring the playtime of their children leads to better cognitive development (of the children).

The author's logic is based on the point that such structuring hampers 2 aspects 
1. Creativity
2. Resourcefulness

And the author is equating these 2 aspects to cognitive development. i.e.  as per the author, without creativity and resourcefulness, cognitive development is not possible .

This is the flaw. What if cognitive development is possible even without creativity and resourcefulness being developed?

Now, let us look at the options.

(A) It takes for granted that if something is conducive to a certain goal it cannot also be conducive to some other goal. 
Very interesting choice. Lets say - 
Goal 1 = Cognitive Development (say CD)
Goal 2 - Creativity (C) and Resourcefulness (R)

What this option says: If structuring of playtime is conducive for Goal 1, it cannot also be conducive for Goal 2. This is true as per the author's logic. But, the author's argument is that CD (Goal 1) will not be achieved. This option only tells us that Goal 2 will not be achieved, it does not tell us why Goal 1 may still be achieved despite Goal 2 not happening. Hence, it is not the flaw in the argument!

(B) It overlooks the possibility that many children enjoy rigorously organized playtime.
 
Irrelevant. Whether children enjoy the structuring/organisation of their playtime has nothing to do with whether it results in their cognitive development. CD can happen even without the child enjoying the structure.

(C) It takes a necessary condition for something’s enhancing a child’s creativity and resourcefulness to be a sufficient condition for its doing so.
 
Interestingly worded but actually has nothing to do with the author's logic. From the argument, all we know is that structure is bad for creativity and resourcefulness (C and R). We cannot even be sure that a lack of structure would be good for enhancing a child's C and R. 
Even assuming that an unstructured playtime if good for enhancing a child's C and R, is it a necessary condition? Is it a sufficient condition? We actually don't know; for all we know - it is not even a necessary condition, forget being a sufficient condition. 
We are not even sure about necessary and sufficient here - this option can definitely not be the correct answer choice!

(D) It fails to consider the possibility that being able to write a good novel requires something more than creativity and resourcefulness. 
Writing a good novel was used as an analogy by the author to illustrate his logic, it is not the real mainstay of the argument. This option can be safely rejected as it is actually not relevant to the argument.

(E) It fails to consider the possibility that something could enhance a child’s overall cognitive development without enhancing the child’s creativity and resourcefulness.

This is as per our analysis. The author fails to consider that CD can be enhanced without development of C and R. Correct choice.

Hope this helps.

toy9575 · Answer

Since I got the answer correct ill make a valiant attempt at explaining my choice
Premise- Many parents rigorously organize their children’s activities during playtime, thinking that doing so will enhance their children’s cognitive development
Conclusion- this belief is incorrect
Since its a weaker question we need to logically attack the conclusion that this belief is incorrect by providing support for the example provided in the premise and attacking the belief of the author.
Choice E correctly does it by providing support to Children's cognitive development

mSKR · Answer

Many parents rigorously organize their children’s activities during playtime, thinking that doing so will enhance their children’s cognitive development. 
>>(many)organize  Enhance CD

But this belief is incorrect. 
>>Conclusion

To thoroughly structure a child’s playtime and expect this to produce a creative and resourceful child would be like expecting a good novel to be produced by someone who was told exactly what the plot and characters must be.
>>can’t expect a good novel (becoming creative and resourceful child) if what the plot and characters must be (parents have organized child play)
>>parents organize child play can’t become CR

Statement1: parents organize child play can enhance CD ( premise)

Argument by author:
Conclusion: parents organize child play can NOT enhance CD ( premise)
Author : because : parents organize child play cant become CR (additional statement)

Prethinking for weakening:
Find : that parents organize child play still can enhance CD
Author conclusion based on: parents organize child play can’t become creative

To weaken his concluding thought: 
can say that creative is not a necessary condition, still child can be CD 
There could be other factors that still can enhance CD.

(A) It takes for granted that if something is conducive to a certain goal it cannot also be conducive to some other goal.
>>Irrelevant

(B) It overlooks the possibility that many children enjoy rigorously organized playtime.
>> enjoy has nothing to do if organize can being some value to enhance the CD

(C) It takes a necessary condition for something’s enhancing a child’s creativity and resourcefulness to be a sufficient condition for its doing so.
>> It takes a necessary condition for something’s enhancing= organize child play is enhancing child’s creativity and resourcefulness is SUFFICIENT CONDITION 
>> there is nothing mentioned that sufficient condition can be necessary condition to enhance a child cr
>>irrelevant.

If the choice has been that
Organize child play is necessary condition to enhance child CR then it would have just weakened the author premises but would not have any effect on whether child enhance CD or not. 
Still the choice would have been irrelevant

(D) It fails to consider the possibility that being able to write a good novel requires something more than creativity and resourcefulness.
>>good novel and creativity and resource fullness are irrelevant

(E) It fails to consider the possibility that something could enhance a child’s overall cognitive development without enhancing the child’s creativity and resourcefulness-CORRECT 
>> matches our prethinking 
To weaken his concluding thought: 
creative is not a necessary condition, still child can be creative 
There could be other factors that still can enhance CD.

@egmat@egmat : i hope the analysis is right.

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.

Many parents rigorously organize their children’s activities during pl

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

Many parents rigorously organize their children’s activities during pl

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