It assumes what it sets out to establish??

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:39 am
Location: Bengaluru, India
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:640

It assumes what it sets out to establish??

by sachindia » Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:14 pm
A birth is more likely to be difficult when the mother is over the age of 40 than when she is younger. Regardless
of the mother's age, a person whose birth was difficult is more likely to be ambidextrous than is a person whose
birth was not difficult. Since other causes of ambidexterity are not related to the mother's age, there must be
more ambidextrous people who were born to women over 40 than there are ambidextrous people who were born
to younger women. The argument is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?
A. It assumes what it sets out to establish.
B. It overlooks the possibility that fewer children are born to women over 40 than to women under 40.
C. It fails to specify what percentage of people in the population as a whole are ambidextrous.
D. It does not state how old a child must be before its handedness can be determined.
E. It neglects to explain how difficulties during birth can result in a child's ambidexterity.

OA is B

but whats wrong with A ?
Regards,
Sach
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
MBA Admissions Consultant
Posts: 2279
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 7:51 am
Location: New York
Thanked: 660 times
Followed by:266 members
GMAT Score:770

by Jim@StratusPrep » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:02 am
The argument is that more ambidextrous people are born to women over 40. In no way is this assumed in the passage. You are looking to refute the number and this conclusion should give a relative number not an absolute.
GMAT Answers provides a world class adaptive learning platform.
-- Push button course navigation to simplify planning
-- Daily assignments to fit your exam timeline
-- Organized review that is tailored based on your abiility
-- 1,000s of unique GMAT questions
-- 100s of handwritten 'digital flip books' for OG questions
-- 100% Free Trial and less than $20 per month after.
-- Free GMAT Quantitative Review

Image

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:42 am

by hjafferi » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:39 am
Chose A

Agree with OA after Jim,s explanation.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 4:39 am
Thanked: 9 times
GMAT Score:640

by Ankur87 » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:29 pm
Can anyone please explain me what is wrong with option C.
I mean , once we know the proportion of ambidextrous people then we can claim that less ambidextrous people are born to women over 40.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: india

by mohan514 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:31 am
Jim@StratusPrep wrote:The argument is that more ambidextrous people are born to women over 40. In no way is this assumed in the passage. You are looking to refute the number and this conclusion should give a relative number not an absolute.
sir can you please elaborate the choice
i selected e..