| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dextar
Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Posts: 100
Thanks given: 2
Thanked 0 times in 0 posts
Location: INDIA
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:17 pm Post subject: Question not clear at all!! |
 |
|
A researcher studying drug addicts found that , on average, they tend to manipulate other people a great deal more than non-addicts do. The researcher concluded that people who frequently manipulate other people are likely to become addicts.
1) After becoming addicted to drugs, drug addicts learn to manipulate other people as a way of obtaining drugs.
2) Some non addicts manipulate other people more than some addicts do.
3) The addicts that the researcher studied were often unsuccessful in obtaining what they wanted when they manipulated other people.
I'm totally stumped here. Pls any one explain me in detail how to proceed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
AleksandrM
GMAT Destroyer!
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 530
Thanks given: 11
Thanked 19 times in 19 posts
Location: Philadelphia
Test Date: September 8, 2008
Target GMAT Score: 650
GMAT Score: 640
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rey.fernandez
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 02 Mar 2008
Posts: 82
Thanks given: 0
Thanked 9 times in 8 posts
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | A researcher studying drug addicts found that , on average, they tend to manipulate other people a great deal more than non-addicts do. The researcher concluded that people who frequently manipulate other people are likely to become addicts.
1) After becoming addicted to drugs, drug addicts learn to manipulate other people as a way of obtaining drugs.
2) Some non addicts manipulate other people more than some addicts do.
3) The addicts that the researcher studied were often unsuccessful in obtaining what they wanted when they manipulated other people.
|
True, dextar didn't include the question, but I'm willing to bet it's a "find the assumption that supports the argument" question.
If that's the case, then the answer is (3). The researcher noticed a correlation between two phenomena: manipulation and addiction. He/She concluded that there was a causation such that manipulation causes addiction. This is the conclusion of the argument.
Now, in making this conclusion, the researcher assumes that the other model of causation is not happening, namely that addiction to drugs causes people to be more manipulative. This is the big assumption upon which the argument rests.
(1) is no good: it actually contradicts the argument's conclusion by saying that addiction leads to manipulation. We're looking for an answer that says that addiction DOES NOT lead to manipulation.
(2) is no good: it's out of scope by introducing a distinction between some addicts and some non-addicts. The correct answer is always very closely related to the conclusion of the argument. This answer choice is not.
(3) tells us that drug addiction does not lead to manipulation.
What's the source of this question? Why are there only three answer choices?
Rey
_________________
Rey Fernandez
Instructor
Manhattan GMAT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stuart Kovinsky
GMAT Instructor
Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 1227
Thanks given: 0
Thanked 203 times in 185 posts
Location: Toronto
GMAT Score: 800
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rey.fernandez wrote: | | Quote: | A researcher studying drug addicts found that , on average, they tend to manipulate other people a great deal more than non-addicts do. The researcher concluded that people who frequently manipulate other people are likely to become addicts.
1) After becoming addicted to drugs, drug addicts learn to manipulate other people as a way of obtaining drugs.
2) Some non addicts manipulate other people more than some addicts do.
3) The addicts that the researcher studied were often unsuccessful in obtaining what they wanted when they manipulated other people.
|
True, dextar didn't include the question, but I'm willing to bet it's a "find the assumption that supports the argument" question.
If that's the case, then the answer is (3). The researcher noticed a correlation between two phenomena: manipulation and addiction. He/She concluded that there was a causation such that manipulation causes addiction. This is the conclusion of the argument.
Now, in making this conclusion, the researcher assumes that the other model of causation is not happening, namely that addiction to drugs causes people to be more manipulative. This is the big assumption upon which the argument rests.
(1) is no good: it actually contradicts the argument's conclusion by saying that addiction leads to manipulation. We're looking for an answer that says that addiction DOES NOT lead to manipulation.
(2) is no good: it's out of scope by introducing a distinction between some addicts and some non-addicts. The correct answer is always very closely related to the conclusion of the argument. This answer choice is not.
(3) tells us that drug addiction does not lead to manipulation.
What's the source of this question? Why are there only three answer choices?
Rey |
I'll play the game too and guess that this is a "weaken" question instead (in large part because I don't agree that (3) is an assumption required by the argument - the success of the manipulation is outside the scope).
The argument itself follows a classic causation pattern:
Study shows that X and Y go together.
Therefore, X causes Y.
Every time an author moves from events occuring together to a conclusion that there's a causal link, the author is making 3 assumptions:
(i) it's not just coincidence;
(ii) there's no overriding cause for both phenomena (i.e. it's not just a correlation); and
(iii) the stated cause and effect aren't backward.
In the argument posted above, (iii) is the relevant assumption. The author says that X and Y occur together, therefore X causes Y. However, the author overlooks the possibility that Y causes X instead.
Our prediction for a weakener: Drug addicts frequently become manipulators.
Looking at the choices provided, (1) is a perfect match.
_________________
Stuart Kovinsky, B.A. LL.B.
Academic Co-ordinator
Kaplan Test Prep & Admissions
Toronto Office
1-800-KAP-TEST
Learn more about me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dextar
Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Posts: 100
Thanks given: 2
Thanked 0 times in 0 posts
Location: INDIA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wao What shd I say now!!!
Quite rite I forgot to include the question. However the heartening thing to see is that ppl are still replying.
I apologize for not including the question
And Stuart is always rite  . Yes this indeed is the weaken the argument question.
Nice explanation Stuart .Learnt something new today.
By the way can u pls explain the 1st and 2 nd assumption that u took with some examples? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
"GMAT" and other GMAC™ trademarks are registered trademarks of the Graduate Management Admission Council™. The Graduate Management Admission Council™ does not endorse, nor is it affiliated in any way with the owner or any content on this website. The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author or those of the members of this website. Copyright © 2008 BTG Test Prep, LLC. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group.
|
|
