Hi hey_thr!

As you clearly identified, this is an assumption question. On these questions, the GMAT is asking us for a missing link, something necessary to connect the evidence to the assumption.

One good place to look for assumptions is what's known as a scope shift--a change in terminology between the premises of the argument and it's ultimate point. The main point can be identified here as a prediction for the future: we're guessing what "would" happen, that the wrist condition caused by playing video games would be eliminated. Why? Well, because they wouldn't be able to buy those games.

Spot the shift?

The prediction for the future predicts fewer children will play video games. But the plan only prohibits children from purchasing those games. What if they got them another way? Rentals, gifts, borrowing them from friends? That would make the plan ineffective!

So, the argument hinges on the assumption that restricting purchases of video games will significantly decrease their availability--that children can't get them another way.

Once we've made our prediction, we can look through the answer choices for the best match. That's clearly (D), so we've got our answer!

Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who play video games on a regular basis are three times as likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome as are adolescents who do not play video games. Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents.

The doctor's conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?

A: The majority of federal legislators would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of video games to minors.

B: Not all adolescents who play video games on a regular basis suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.

C: Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.

D: Most parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.

E: The regular playing of video games by adolescents does not produce such beneficial effects as better hand-eye coordination and improved reaction time.



I came down to the options D and A. Honestly D clearly negates the conclusion completely. But I have one question, that is when you negate the option A, you also see that the conclusion is negated. but I used a logic saying that, The Federal Legislation does not only have to use a bill to prohibit the buying of video games by minors. There are other modes of doing that. So the modes is not a question, but the stopping to buy is the question. AM I right to cancel out the option A.

Options B and C are more of an inference question. They infer something from the stimulus.

Option E: This choice is simply out of scope as it is talking about the advantages of playing video games very regularly.

Hence the correct answer comes down to option D.

This more seems to be a Defender Assumption model that when you negate gives you perfect answer.

Hope this helps.