Strengthen

[BTGmoderatorRO]

It is true that students who meditate at least once a week do better on the GMAT than those who never meditate. This finding does not show that meditation causes people to do better, since students who meditate are more likely than other students to have adequate time to study.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument above?

(A) A person who meditates but has little time to study is more likely to give up other activities to allow more study time than a person who does not meditate and also has little time to study
(B) Among people who meditate, the more frequent the meditation, the better that person does on the test, on average
(C) Among the students who have adequate time to study, those who do not meditate do just as well on the test as those who do meditate
OA is c.

what is the correct answer here?

[EconomistGMATTutor]

The conclusion: It is not true that meditation causes people to perform better on the GMAT.

The evidence: Students who meditate are more likely than other students to have adequate time to study.

Assumption: Having adequate study time is the actual cause of superior scores. This is shown by correct Choice C. If meditation was the real reason, then students who meditate would do better than those who don't, even though both groups have adequate study time. That's not what happened according to the argument. When adequate study time was the same, the meditators did no better. This strengthens the conclusion that meditation does not cause people to perform better on the test.

You've only included two wrong choices. Choice A does say that meditators are more likely to give up other activities to increase study time, but does NOT say that meditation was the cause of the higher scores.

Choice B weakens the conclusion. It suggests that meditation DOES improve scores.

I'm available if you'd like any follow up.