A team of pediatricians recently announced that dogs are more likely

Question

A team of pediatricians recently announced that dogs are more likely to bite children under age 13 than any other age group. Their finding was based on a study showing that the majority of all dog bites requiring medical attention involved children under 13. The study also found that the dogs most likely to bite are German shepherds, males, and non-neutered dogs.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the pediatricians' conclusion that dogs are more likely to bite children under age 13 than any other age group?

(A) More than half of dog bites not requiring medical attention, which exceed the number requiring such attention, involve people aged 13 and older.

(B) The majority of dog bites resulting in the death of the bitten person involve people aged 65 and older.

(C) Many serious dog bites affecting children under age 13 are inflicted by female dogs, neutered dogs, and dogs that are not German shepherds.

(D) Most dog bites of children under age 13 that require medical attention are far less serious than they initially appear.

(E) Most parents can learn to treat dog bites effectively if they avail themselves of a small amount of medical information.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

proddnav · Answer

My Analysis:

This question requires us to read the stem very carefully. The question stem says what if true, will weaken the  paediatrician's conclusion that dogs are more likely to bite children under age 13 than any other age group?

Option A: This the right answer because the paediatricians conclusion is formed from the number of serious bites which require attention and not from the number of dog bites of children under 13 years. It is important to highlight this difference. This option attacks the paediatrician's conclusion by providing statistics on dog bites as a whole and not dog bites requiring serious attention. This weakens the paediatrician's conclusion

Option B: This is out of scope and doesn't weaken the conclusion

Option C: This is a trap answer and people are likely going to choose this if they don't read the stem properly. The stem asks to weaken the conclusion about dogs' likeliness of biting children below 13 years. It doesn't ask us to weaken the study on the type and gender of dog that contributes more to dog bites

Option D: This is out of scope and doesn't weaken the conclusion. This option talks about the seriousness of the dog bite and not the likeliness of dogs biting children under 13 years age

Option E: This is out of scope and doesn't weaken the conclusion

I hope this makes it clear.

Thank You

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

We don't have to look far for the conclusion in this one—it's restated right in the question stem: Dogs are more likely to bite children under age 13 than any other age group. The evidence is found in the second sentence dealing with the findings in the study. The last sentence expands on the study, but essentially adds nothing of value to the logic of the stimulus; it's basically "filler" material. So what's the scope shift? The conclusion is about dogs biting children under 13, but the evidence is based on dog bites requiring medical attention. (A) weakens the argument by addressing this scope shift. It basically says that many dog bites that don't require medical attention (bites that are within the scope of the conclusion) happen to people over 13. Now, this doesn't disprove the argument; it merely weakens the link between the stated evidence and the stated conclusion. The pediatricians counted up all the people bitten by dogs who came in for medical attention, found most of them to be under age 13, and concluded from this alone that dogs are more likely to bite children under age 13. This general conclusion is based on evidence about a very specific group. If it's true, as (A) says, that many who don't seek treatment are over 13, then the argument is weakened.  (A) it is.

An 800 test taker has a sure-fire method for spotting scope shifts. She asks herself:
 1) What's the focus, subject, or scope of the conclusion?
2) What's the focus, subject, or scope of the evidence?
3) Are they the same?

(B) We're not concerned with the results of the dog bites, only the frequency of bites by age group. Even if everyone over 65 dies as a result of being bitten, it could still be true that children under 13 are most likely to be bitten.

(C) is a takeoff on the filler sentence: Once again, it's the sheer number of bites that's important, not the kinds of dogs inflicting them.

(D) Same thing: The number of bites, not the seriousness of them, is the issue.

(E) is irrelevant; what can happen plays no role in the study and the conclusion based on 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 team of pediatricians recently announced that dogs are more likely

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 team of pediatricians recently announced that dogs are more likely

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