Here, we have a classic cause and effect argument: X leads to Y (computers lead to less tv), which the author needs our help to undermine. This common situation usually has a common assumption inherent to it: that there is no other reasonable explanation. Therefore, we weaken the argument if we can show that is it no x but rather factor Z that leads to Y; or, that there is an underlying cause Z that leads to both X AND Y.

Looking for one of those two pre-phrased weakeners, we zoom right in on C which matches perfectly. Some third factor, unknown but linked to demographics, is responsible for both X and Y, computer ownership and TV time. Since both X and Y are results of Z, we undermine the claim that Y is the result of X. C is correct.

KapTeacherEli wrote:Here, we have a classic cause and effect argument: X leads to Y (computers lead to less tv), which the author needs our help to undermine. This common situation usually has a common assumption inherent to it: that there is no other reasonable explanation. Therefore, we weaken the argument if we can show that is it no x but rather factor Z that leads to Y; or, that there is an underlying cause Z that leads to both X AND Y.

Looking for one of those two pre-phrased weakeners, we zoom right in on C which matches perfectly. Some third factor, unknown but linked to demographics, is responsible for both X and Y, computer ownership and TV time. Since both X and Y are results of Z, we undermine the claim that Y is the result of X. C is correct.

1. If the ques. were to weaken the finding that 'computers are the cause of less tv watching', would we handle this ques. differently or both of these are same ques. types?

2. What is problem with e?
we need to find a reason that can show that users haven't ignored tv due to computers.
e says as computers can help in increase of leisure time, they infact 'might' help in increasing watching tv.

3. If the ques were to weaken the finding that 'computers are the cause of less tv watching', would E be suitable candidate?
Plz explain.

IMO this is not a cause & effect. We need to weaken the reasearch studies. Bring out a flaw in the study. C does it by stating that a feature of the group counters what was concluded by the study.

vaibhav.iit2002 wrote:
1. If the ques. were to weaken the finding that 'computers are the cause of less tv watching', would we handle this ques. differently or both of these are same ques. types?

2. What is problem with e?
we need to find a reason that can show that users haven't ignored tv due to computers.
e says as computers can help in increase of leisure time, they infact 'might' help in increasing watching tv.

3. If the ques were to weaken the finding that 'computers are the cause of less tv watching', would E be suitable candidate?
Plz explain.

Hi vaibhav,

I think my explanation might have been a little unclear, since you're asking how to weaken that finding--since that is what we are doing!

This question is asking us to strengthen the claim that computer ownership does not cause lower TV time. This is the same question as weakening the claim the computers do cause less TV.

E, by the way, doesn't really help or hurt; the primary use of the computers is out of scope. If you squint, you can argue that not taking time makes computer less likely to be the culprit, but you could equally well argue that if computer users have more time and yet still watch less TV, the computers must be responsible. Neither of these arguments really hold water.


crackgmat007, you are correct that we can treat this as a representativeness issue; many GMAT CR problems have multiple angles of attack. I think cause and effect is an easier approach, however. But that's a matter of taste!