Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.
See classesLearn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.
Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.
with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep
Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.
with
Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.
right wrong
Pick an answer to see how members did
Log this miss in the free GMAT error log
Get the error logGet one like this every day: the free 60-day plan
Start the plan
This gets rid of "Articles were rejected by journals" as a potential explanation, so it helps the argument. Opposite of what we want.(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year actually was published.
This gets rid of "Scientists had to wait longer to conduct their experiments" as a potential explanation, so it helps the argument. Opposite of what we want. (See the post above for the changes necessary to make this choice definitively incorrect.)(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
Irrelevant.(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
Irrelevant.(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
Hey all,Brent@GMATPrepNow wrote:The conclusion here is a cause and effect conclusion. That is, the reduced availability of particle accelerators caused the low number of articles.onesome wrote: Journalist: In physics journals, the number of articles reporting the results of experiments involving particle accelerators was lower last year than it had been in previous years. Several of the particle accelerators at major research institutions were out of service the year before last for repairs, so it is likely that the low number of articles was due to the decline in availability of particle accelerators.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the journalist�s argument?
(A) Every article based on experiments with particle accelerators that was submitted for publication last year actually was published.
(B) The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
(C) The number of physics journals was the same last year as in previous years.
(D) Particle accelerators can be used for more than one group of experiments in any given year.
(E) Recent changes in the editorial policies of several physics journals have decreased the likelihood that articles concerning particle-accelerator research will be accepted for publication.
To weaken an X causes Y argument, we can show that:
- Y causes X
- Z causes Y
- X and Y are coincidental
Answer choice D doesn't accomplish any of the above. It suggests that there shouldn't have been a decline in publications in the first place (since more than 1 experiment can be conducted at an accelerator). I should also add that it if it were the case that each accelerator was already being used at maximum capacity (that is, no more experiments could be conducted at them), then the decreased availability would, indeed, cause a drop in publications. So D does not necessarily hurt the argument.
Answer choice E, however, suggests that something else (i.e., Z causes Y) caused the decline in publications.
Cheers,
Brent
The phrase in red should be added to the reasoning above.ChrisFic wrote: - Show that, IN ANOTHER CASE, while the effect occurred the cause did not
I like it! Thank you for pointing that out sirGMATGuruNY wrote:The phrase in red should be added to the reasoning above.ChrisFic wrote: - Show that, IN ANOTHER CASE, while the effect occurred the cause did not
Generally, a causal argument proceeds as follows:
Premise: A and B are observed together.
Conclusion: A causes B.
One way to weaken the conclusion is to show that -- IN ANOTHER CASE -- B has been observed without A.
To illustrate:
Premise: In a certain study, 1,000 people who ate chocolate every day suffered from depression.
Conclusion: Chocolate causes depression.
Weakener: Last year, a study of 1 gazillion patients who suffered from depression revealed that 99% of these patients had never eaten chocolate.
Since -- in another case -- B (suffering from depression) has been observed without A (eating chocolate), the causal link is weakened.
However, if the premise is that A and B have been observed together, the correct answer choice cannot weaken the conclusion by implying that A did not happen IN THE CASE AT HAND.
A premise is a FACT: it cannot be disputed.
If the argument states as a premise that A happened, the correct answer choice cannot imply that A did NOT happen.
In the CR above, A = a decline in the availability of accelerators.
Answer choice: The average time scientists must wait for access to a particle accelerator has declined over the last several years.
This answer choice seems to suggest that A did not happen: that there has NOT been a decline in the availability of accelerators.
Thus, we should be VERY skeptical of this answer choice.
See, this ^^ is the kind of thing that just doesn't make any sense to try to do. It's basically impossible to make rules for this stuff; in fact, CR is on the test because it's basically impossible to make rules for this stuff.ChrisFic wrote:Which leads me to my question - Which is better to do for a conclusion with a causal statement:
-Show that while the effect occurs the cause does not
OR
-Show that while the cause occurs the effect does not
Here ^^ is a case in point. By trying to apply "rules", we've arrived at a conclusion that's wrong. In reality, the causal link here is unaffected.GMATGuruNY wrote:One way to weaken the conclusion is to show that -- IN ANOTHER CASE -- B has been observed without A.
To illustrate:
Premise: In a certain study, 1,000 people who ate chocolate every day suffered from depression.
Conclusion: Chocolate causes depression.
Weakener: Last year, a study of 1 gazillion patients who suffered from depression revealed that 99% of these patients had never eaten chocolate.
Since -- in another case -- B (suffering from depression) has been observed without A (eating chocolate), the causal link is weakened.
We're in total agreement that providing examples of the effect without the alleged cause (B without A) does not disprove that A causes B.lunarpower wrote:In reality, the causal link here is unaffected.
I don't find this an apt analogy..does nothing to weaken the idea that jumping from a skyscraper will kill you
Here, we diverge.the blame still lies in this whole idea of creating frivolous "rules" for something that's much easier to do with everyday (wo)man-on-the-street type thinking.
Are you kidding me? This is straight from an LSAT course where formal logic is used and Critical Reasoning (called logical reasoning on the LSAT) is 50% of the ENTIRE score. In the LSAT course that I teach we spend around 40 hours on logical reasoning! That is longer than an entire GMAT course.I had trouble with this one as well. In my book (Powerscore) they talk about different ways to attack a causal conclusion:
- Show that while the cause occurs the effect does not
- Show that while the effect occurs the cause did not
- Find an alternate cause for the stated effect
- Show that the state relationship is reversed
- Show that a statistical problem exists with the data used to make the causal statement
Well, agreement some of the time. Which, I guess, isn't really agreement. (:GMATGuruNY wrote:We're in total agreement that providing examples of the effect without the alleged cause (B without A) does not disprove that A causes B.lunarpower wrote:In reality, the causal link here is unaffected.
