Critical Reasoning

Hi,

I came across this question which I do not disagree with the standard answer. It's from Q22 of Kaplan GMAT CAT 1.

===========================================

A national survey of 10,000 employed Americans indicated that, as a group, those who had held four or more different jobs in the past 5 years registered by far the highest level of dissatisfaction with their family and work. From this, psychologists concluded that people who do not remain in a job situation long enough to establish strong personal and professional ties tend to develop an attitude of discontent that carries into all other aspects of their lives.

Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the conclusion drawn by the psychologists from the survey?

1) The psychologists fail to recognize that many people who have remained in the same job for the past five years may also have registered high levels of dissatisfaction.

2) The psychologists neglect the question of whether moving from job to job may be an effect rather than a cause of general discontent and dissatisfaction.

==============================================

I have filtered down the answer choices to only 2 choices, listed 1) and 2) above. I do understand that this is a question on causation and according to GMAT CR Bible, there are 5 ways to weaken a causation argument.

1) weakens the argument by showing that the cause is missing though the effect is there.

2) weakens the argument by reversing the cause-effect relationship.

In my opinion, both answer choices look correct to me. However, GMAT Kaplan has rejected 1) as it focuses on the wrong group.
Can someone please explain what I'm missing out on here and if there is any amendment that needs to be made to GMAT CR Bible?

A fantastic question! n i appreciate ur reasoning for both the answer choices..Even I follow strategies of CR bible n wud hav approached the question the way u did.

I feel your strategies are perfectly in place..but to deal with questions like these...a close look at the answer choices may help

1) The psychologists fail to recognize that many people who have remained in the same job for the past five years may also have registered high levels of dissatisfaction

Though a causal relationship is evident, but the word "MAY" - broad scope indicator. This answer choice talks about possiblities - there is very little clarity if people in the same job for 5 yrs hav actually registered high levels of dissatisfaction.They may have or they may not.Hence it's a less weakening answer compared to (2).

Let me know what you feel. Experts plz comment.

A fantastic question! n i appreciate ur reasoning for both the answer choices..Even I follow strategies of CR bible n wud hav approached the question the way u did.

I feel your strategies are perfectly in place..but to deal with questions like these...a close look at the answer choices may help

1) The psychologists fail to recognize that many people who have remained in the same job for the past five years may also have registered high levels of dissatisfaction

Though a causal relationship is evident, but the word "MAY" - broad scope indicator. This answer choice talks about possiblities - there is very little clarity if people in the same job for 5 yrs hav actually registered high levels of dissatisfaction.They may have or they may not.Hence it's a less weakening answer compared to (2).

Let me know what you feel. Experts plz comment.

i totally agree with your choice based on the strength of language.

But can u please help me as to how did you pick A instead of B when B also uses the same "broad scope indicator"

2) The psychologists neglect the question of whether moving from job to job may be an effect rather than a cause of general discontent and dissatisfaction.

thank you!!

sunnyguest wrote:Hi,

I came across this question which I do not disagree with the standard answer. It's from Q22 of Kaplan GMAT CAT 1.

===========================================

A national survey of 10,000 employed Americans indicated that, as a group, those who had held four or more different jobs in the past 5 years registered by far the highest level of dissatisfaction with their family and work. From this, psychologists concluded that people who do not remain in a job situation long enough to establish strong personal and professional ties tend to develop an attitude of discontent that carries into all other aspects of their lives.

Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the conclusion drawn by the psychologists from the survey?

1) The psychologists fail to recognize that many people who have remained in the same job for the past five years may also have registered high levels of dissatisfaction.

2) The psychologists neglect the question of whether moving from job to job may be an effect rather than a cause of general discontent and dissatisfaction.

==============================================

I have filtered down the answer choices to only 2 choices, listed 1) and 2) above. I do understand that this is a question on causation and according to GMAT CR Bible, there are 5 ways to weaken a causation argument.

1) weakens the argument by showing that the cause is missing though the effect is there.

2) weakens the argument by reversing the cause-effect relationship.

In my opinion, both answer choices look correct to me. However, GMAT Kaplan has rejected 1) as it focuses on the wrong group.
Can someone please explain what I'm missing out on here and if there is any amendment that needs to be made to GMAT CR Bible?

No amendments is to be made

your reasoning to mark 1 as the contendor is not correct.
You implied that effect is there but with the different cause.
No!! Effect is not there


In 1. Effect is also different and the cause is also different.


We are talking about the group who do not remain in job for long.
Concentrating on other groups would lead to OOS choices.
Effect zeroes in on the wrong group.

Effect : Dissatisfaction (for the people who do not remain in job for long)
Cause: frequent change of jobs

(1) Basically implies that correlation might not imply causation. However, just because this group is also dissatisfied doesn't preclude professional discontent from affecting personal life as stated in the conclusion i.e. (1) implies that there may be other causes of personal dissatisfaction but does not necessarily preclude the conclusion.

(2) The passage identifies correlation (job jumping and dissatisfaction coincide) and assumes causation (therefore latter causes former). The conclusion assumes that the latter causes the former and only cites correlation and conjecture to support this. (2) directly challenges whether correlation implies causation in the example and therefore is a strong rebuttal.