When a married couple has frequent emotionally satisfying conversation

Question

When a married couple has frequent emotionally satisfying conversations, they tend in overwhelming percentages to remain married throughout their lives. Queen Melinda and Prince Jonathan, Duke of Westphalia, have been married for over sixty years, so clearly they must have emotionally satisfying conversations all the time.

This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?

(A) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that has happened only after the condition already existed.

(B) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusions that is to be established.

(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actually cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

(D) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.

(E) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.

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

Bismuth83 · Answer

1. The text tell us that  "when a married couple has frequent emotionally satisfying conversations, they tend in overwhelming percentages to remain married throughout their lives" . Then, they argue that since  "Queen Melinda and Prince Jonathan, Duke of Westphalia, have been married for over sixty years" , then  " they must have emotionally satisfying conversations all the time" . Now we need  a statement that would most weaken the argument .

2. Let's simplify the text. They say that if A ( has frequent emotionally satisfying conversations ) is true then B (remain married throughout their lives) tends to be also true. The argument says that B is true and concludes that then A must be true too.

3. However, a statement weakening the argument would say that if B is true then it's not always true that A must be true too. In other words, there are other reasons apart from A to why B could be true. Let's look at the possible answers:

-    It takes a condition to be the effect of something that has happened only after the condition already existed.   This statement doesn't work.

-    It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusions that is to be established.   This statement doesn't work.

-    It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actually cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.   This statement does weaken the argument.

-  It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.  This statement doesn't work.

-  It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.     This statement doesn't work.

Krunaal · Answer

The argument assumes that the emotionally satisfying conversations are the  only  cause of the longevity of their marriage without considering that other factors might contribute to a long-lasting marriage.

Criticism: 
The flaw is that the argument attributes the long-lasting marriage solely to emotionally satisfying conversations, ignoring other potential reasons for their successful marriage. Therefore, it is taking  one possible cause (emotionally satisfying conversations) as the actual cause of the condition (being married for over sixty years) without considering other causes.

Answer C.

Nikhil17bhatt · Answer

IMO C

Let's analyze the argument and the provided answer choices to identify which criticism is most applicable.

Argument Breakdown
Premise: When a married couple has frequent emotionally satisfying conversations, they tend in overwhelming percentages to remain married throughout their lives.
Observation: Queen Melinda and Prince Jonathan, Duke of Westphalia, have been married for over sixty years.
Conclusion: Therefore, they must have emotionally satisfying conversations all the time.
Criticism Analysis
(A) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that has happened only after the condition already existed.

This option suggests a temporal confusion where the effect is assumed to have occurred before the cause. However, the argument does not involve such a temporal sequence issue. It is not claiming that the emotionally satisfying conversations happened after the long marriage.
(B) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusions that is to be established.

This option suggests circular reasoning or begging the question, where the conclusion is assumed in the premises. The argument does not explicitly presuppose its conclusion; it infers the conclusion based on the given premise.
(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

This option is relevant. The argument assumes that the only reason for a long marriage is frequent emotionally satisfying conversations. It does not consider other possible reasons why Queen Melinda and Prince Jonathan might have stayed married for over sixty years, such as social, economic, or personal reasons.
(D) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.

This option suggests that the conclusion merely restates the premise in different words. However, the conclusion ("they must have emotionally satisfying conversations all the time") is not a paraphrase of the premise; it is an inference drawn from it.
(E) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.

This option suggests internal inconsistency within the argument. However, the argument does not present conflicting pieces of evidence; it presents a single premise and draws a conclusion from it.
Conclusion
The most appropriate criticism is:

(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

This criticism is valid because the argument assumes that the long marriage of Queen Melinda and Prince Jonathan is solely due to emotionally satisfying conversations, ignoring other potential factors that could contribute to the longevity of their marriage.

prantorboni · Answer

When a married couple has frequent emotionally satisfying conversations, they tend in overwhelming percentages to remain married throughout their lives. Queen Melinda and Prince Jonathan, Duke of Westphalia, have been married for over sixty years, so clearly they must have emotionally satisfying conversations all the time.

One opinion has been introduced. Took one example and then considered result will be same as stated.

Consider, option,  (C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actually cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes which aligns with our presumption.

Answer: C.

dkpkoti · Answer

This is a typical cause effect argument. which concludes having frequent emotional conversation is the reason for long lasting marriage. In such arguments, author assume there is no other factor which can contribute the result. In order to question the validity of argument, we can look for an option which takes into account other factors. Which is done by option C. "It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actually cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes."

Bunuel · Answer

MAGOOSH OFFICIAL SOLUTION:

This is a weak argument. Yes, frequent emotionally satisfying conversations might be one cause of long marriages, but it can't be the only one. In particular, with royal couple who presumably hold some kind of national significance, there may well be some public pressures to maintain a marriage even if the queen & prince are no longer personally madly in love.

(C) is the credited answer. The argument takes one cause (frequent emotionally satisfying conversations) to be the only cause of a long marriage, without considering other possible causes.

(A) is bizarre: the effect here is a long marriage, and they have been married for over sixty years, so the effect of getting married didn't happen after the reputed cause.

(B) is wrong because, essentially, no distinction is drawn.

(D) is wrong because the evidence (the first sentence) is general, and the conclusion (about the royal couple) is specific. Nothing is paraphrased.

(E) is wrong because nothing is inconsistent with anything else in this argument.

When a married couple has frequent emotionally satisfying conversation

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

When a married couple has frequent emotionally satisfying conversation

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