BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Attention Deficit Disorder

Expert replies
by komal » Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:22 pm
Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is a condition characterized by an inability to focus on any topic for a prolonged period of time, and is especially common among children five to ten years old. A recent study has shown that 85 percent of seven-year-old children with ADD watch, on average, more than five hours of television a day. It is therefore very likely that Ed, age seven, has ADD, since he watches roughly six hours of television a day.
The argument above is flawed because it
(A) cites as a direct causal mechanism a factor that may only be a partial cause of the condition in question
(B) fails to indicate the chances of having ADD among seven-year-old children who watch more than five hours of television a day
(C) limits the description of the symptoms of ADD to an inability to focus for a prolonged period of time
(D) fails to consider the possibility that Ed may be among the 15 percent of children who do not watch more than five hours of television a day
(E) does not allow for other causes of ADD besides television watching

OA B
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by money9111 » Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:07 pm
i chose E but i totally understand why the answer was B... i should have reread the question again because then I would have gotten it.
My goal is to make MBA applicants take onus over their process.

My story from Pre-MBA to Cornell MBA - New Post in Pre-MBA blog

Me featured on Poets & Quants

Free Book for MBA Applicants

Join the discussion

by reply2spg » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:42 pm
I got an answer as E. I don't understand why B....what is the source of this question?
Join the discussion

by Phirozz » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:10 pm
komal wrote:Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is a condition characterized by an inability to focus on any topic for a prolonged period of time, and is especially common among children five to ten years old. A recent study has shown that 85 percent of seven-year-old children with ADD watch, on average, more than five hours of television a day. It is therefore very likely that Ed, age seven, has ADD, since he watches roughly six hours of television a day.
The argument above is flawed because it
(A) cites as a direct causal mechanism a factor that may only be a partial cause of the condition in question
(B) fails to indicate the chances of having ADD among seven-year-old children who watch more than five hours of television a day
(C) limits the description of the symptoms of ADD to an inability to focus for a prolonged period of time
(D) fails to consider the possibility that Ed may be among the 15 percent of children who do not watch more than five hours of television a day
(E) does not allow for other causes of ADD besides television watching

OA B
Answer ios clearly B.
85% of children with ADD watch TV more than 5 hrs a day, but its not saying anything about what % of seven yr children suffer from ADD (without knowing which conclusion is invalid)
Join the discussion

by kstv » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:14 pm
85 % (definitely more than 50%) with ADD watch more than 5 hrs TV. So it is something about people with ADD which leads to watch TV for more than 5 hrs on an average. Notice, that it is not long hours of TV which gives them ADD. While the Premise is people with ADD watch > 5 hrs TV, one cannot conclude like in the argument that
ED who is 7 (Common age for ADD) and watches > 5 hrs TV has ADD.
(B) rightly questions this. Consider in the sample 20 % of kids (5 to 10) have ADD. That is 17 % kids have ADD and watch > 5 hrs TV. Says nothing about chances of 80% of the normal kids who watch TV > 5hrs, to develop ADD.
(A) looked promising but the term 'direct causal mechanism' is difficult to decipher. Hope someone explains it in the thread.
Join the discussion

by reply2spg » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:18 am
It clearly says 'how many seven-year-old children are with ADD'
Phirozz wrote:
komal wrote:Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is a condition characterized by an inability to focus on any topic for a prolonged period of time, and is especially common among children five to ten years old. A recent study has shown that 85 percent of seven-year-old children with ADD watch, on average, more than five hours of television a day. It is therefore very likely that Ed, age seven, has ADD, since he watches roughly six hours of television a day.
The argument above is flawed because it
(A) cites as a direct causal mechanism a factor that may only be a partial cause of the condition in question
(B) fails to indicate the chances of having ADD among seven-year-old children who watch more than five hours of television a day
(C) limits the description of the symptoms of ADD to an inability to focus for a prolonged period of time
(D) fails to consider the possibility that Ed may be among the 15 percent of children who do not watch more than five hours of television a day
(E) does not allow for other causes of ADD besides television watching

OA B
Answer ios clearly B.
85% of children with ADD watch TV more than 5 hrs a day, but its not saying anything about what % of seven yr children suffer from ADD (without knowing which conclusion is invalid)
Join the discussion

by m&m » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:02 am
I'm not sure of B - what's the source?

Even if you knew B - there's still a gap that links the ADD condition of a lack of focus to extended (or reduced) TV watching. You could say that if he/she can watch TV for that long then he/she should be able to focus on tv watching. C could equally be the answer - though I do agree B needs to be known too.
Join the discussion

by vineetbatra » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:52 am
komal wrote:Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) is a condition characterized by an inability to focus on any topic for a prolonged period of time, and is especially common among children five to ten years old. A recent study has shown that 85 percent of seven-year-old children with ADD watch, on average, more than five hours of television a day. It is therefore very likely that Ed, age seven, has ADD, since he watches roughly six hours of television a day.
The argument above is flawed because it
(A) cites as a direct causal mechanism a factor that may only be a partial cause of the condition in question
(B) fails to indicate the chances of having ADD among seven-year-old children who watch more than five hours of television a day
(C) limits the description of the symptoms of ADD to an inability to focus for a prolonged period of time (this is targeting the symptoms of ADD not relevant)
(D) fails to consider the possibility that Ed may be among the 15 percent of children who do not watch more than five hours of television a day (this ic opposite to the premise because it says ED watches 6 hrs)
(E) does not allow for other causes of ADD besides television watching (Contender)

OA B
I fail to understand how B is the choice

P1 Argument says ADD is common among ages 5-10,

P2 7 Yrs old with ADD watch TV > 5 hrs

Conclusion - Very Likely (85%) that ED (wathces 6 hrs of TV, which is >5) will have ADD.

This is a strong argument, but what if ADD causes kids to watch TV for > 5 hours- Reversal of causal assumption.

I am not sure what the answer is but B doesn't seem at all, it is just saying that the argument fails indicate the chances of having ADD among seven-year-old children who watch more than five hours of television a day, but this is what the argument is saying, so how does this weaken the argument.

We need an expert.

Let me ping someone
Join the discussion

by Phirozz » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:00 pm
reply2spg wrote:It clearly says 'how many seven-year-old children are with ADD'

85 percent of seven-year-old children with ADD watch on average, more than five hours of television a day

Does the above line says anything about 'how many seven-year-old children have ADD' ???
We dont know what % of the seven yr children who watch TV more than 5 hrs a day have ADD. So conclusion is flawed.
Those 85% of children with ADD may form only 5% of children who watch more than 5 hrs of TV

Hope it helps !!
Join the discussion

by vineetbatra » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:00 am
Phirozz, that makes sense man.

Thanks for the explanation.

Vineet
Join the discussion

by h_jitendras » Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:06 am
m&m wrote:I'm not sure of B - what's the source?

Even if you knew B - there's still a gap that links the ADD condition of a lack of focus to extended (or reduced) TV watching. You could say that if he/she can watch TV for that long then he/she should be able to focus on tv watching. C could equally be the answer - though I do agree B needs to be known too.
The source is Kaplan GMAT 800 book
Join the discussion

by ssgmatter » Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:33 am
Can someone please explain what is the problem with A although B has to be the OA for this one.....

Regards,
Phil
Join the discussion

by mohnish104 » Mon May 06, 2013 6:22 am
i think this is the most difficult CR question i have ever come across
Join the discussion

by tanukalra99 » Mon May 06, 2013 11:03 am
Answer is B
No where it mentioned "five hours of television a day" is the cause of ADD in a seven year old .It can also be the after effects of ADD.
Join the discussion