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

Redeem

Family Care policy

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:34 pm

Family Care policy

by annrae » Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:04 pm
Mr. Lawson: We should adopt a national family policy that includes legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care. Such laws would decrease the stress levels of employees who have responsibility for small children. Thus, such laws would lead to happier, better-adjusted families.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?
(A) An employee’s high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family.
(B) People who have responsibility for small children and who work outside the home have higher stress levels than those who do not.
(C) The goal of a national family policy is to lower the stress levels of parents.
(D) Any national family policy that is adopted would include legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care.
(E) Most children who have been cared for in daycare centers are happy and well adjusted.


OA A, why not E?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:37 am
Location: India
Thanked: 34 times
Followed by:5 members

by camitava » Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:16 pm
Annrae, the passage says about the stress level of parents who have to take care of their children. And the Qs is asking for the statement which supports the conclusion. E is not at all supporting the conclusion rather it is going against the conclusion.
I initally picked up B but in B it is making a comparison between parents of newly born children, working outside their home and those who do not. This fact is also not mentioned in the passage at all. The next option I chose is A because it clearly mentions the assumption which supports the conclusion.
Correct me If I am wrong


Regards,

Amitava
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:31 pm
A must be correct here
annrae wrote:Mr. Lawson: We should adopt a national family policy that includes legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care. Such laws would decrease the stress levels of employees who have responsibility for small children. Thus, such laws would lead to happier, better-adjusted families.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?
(A) An employee�s high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family.
(B) People who have responsibility for small children and who work outside the home have higher stress levels than those who do not.
(C) The goal of a national family policy is to lower the stress levels of parents.
(D) Any national family policy that is adopted would include legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care.
(E) Most children who have been cared for in daycare centers are happy and well adjusted.


OA A, why not E?
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:31 pm
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:7 members

by grockit_andrea » Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:26 pm
annrae wrote:Mr. Lawson: We should adopt a national family policy that includes legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care. Such laws would decrease the stress levels of employees who have responsibility for small children. Thus, such laws would lead to happier, better-adjusted families.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?
(A) An employee�s high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family.
(B) People who have responsibility for small children and who work outside the home have higher stress levels than those who do not.
(C) The goal of a national family policy is to lower the stress levels of parents.
(D) Any national family policy that is adopted would include legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care.
(E) Most children who have been cared for in daycare centers are happy and well adjusted.


OA A, why not E?
E doesn't distinguish between government-sponsored daycare and other daycare centers, so it doesn't necessarily strengthen the argument. If E stated that most children cared for in GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED daycare centers are happy and well-adjusted, it would support the argument, but without that specification, it doesn't work here.
There's an unstated assumption that decreasing stress levels would cause people to have happier, better-adjusted families. If A were true, and high stress caused unhappiness, then it would be reasonable to conclude that lowering stress would decrease unhappiness, or increase happiness.
Andrea A.
Grockit Tutor
https://www.grockit.com
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:16 pm
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by debmalya_dutta » Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:48 pm
why are b and c incorrect here?
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:31 pm
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:7 members

by grockit_andrea » Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:08 pm
debmalya_dutta wrote:why are b and c incorrect here?
B fails to establish a connection between stress levels and happiness/adjustment, while C is largely irrelevant: whether the national family policy's goal is to lower stress levels doesn't determine whether the policy will be successful at increasing happiness and well-adjusted families. Both of these choices leave a gap in the argument between the evidence discussing stress, and the conclusion discussing happiness and well-adjusted families.
Andrea A.
Grockit Tutor
https://www.grockit.com
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 10:04 am
Thanked: 5 times

by apex231 » Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:45 pm
My question is that - isn't the relation between stress level and happiness implicit? If so, then that makes answer choice B a contender for the correct answer.

According to option A -

(A) An employee's high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family. - Now we can interpret this as that high stress level "can be a cause" but not necessarily so in all the cases.

Don't you think we can justify both answer choices A and B in this question?
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 357
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:31 pm
Thanked: 128 times
Followed by:7 members

by grockit_andrea » Fri Aug 06, 2010 5:34 am
apex231 wrote:My question is that - isn't the relation between stress level and happiness implicit? If so, then that makes answer choice B a contender for the correct answer.

According to option A -

(A) An employee's high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family. - Now we can interpret this as that high stress level "can be a cause" but not necessarily so in all the cases.

Don't you think we can justify both answer choices A and B in this question?
Although this question asks for a strengthener, in truth that strengthening is accomplished by identifying and explicitly stating the assumption, which is that there is a link between stress and unhappiness/poor adjustment for families. Although there are exceptions, generally speaking, it's a mistake to assume that something is "implicit" in CR questions. In analyzing an argument, you need to be mindful of what assumptions remain unstated. "Implicit" is just another way of saying that it's an unstated assumption, and in choice A, we state that assumption. As I mentioned in a previous comment, B fails to address that gap in the argument's reasoning, and is therefore incorrect.
Andrea A.
Grockit Tutor
https://www.grockit.com
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by pnk » Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:57 pm
annrae wrote:Mr. Lawson: We should adopt a national family policy that includes legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care. Such laws would decrease the stress levels of employees who have responsibility for small children. Thus, such laws would lead to happier, better-adjusted families.

Evidence: Laws --> leave + day care --> decrease stress of employees having small children

Conclusion: Laws --> lead to happier families

Assumption: decrease stress of employees having small children --> lead to happier families

(A) An employee�s high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family.
Contrapositive of Assuumption: does not lead to happier families (ie unhappier families) --> increase stress of employees having small children

While A says: high stress of employees --> unhappier families

I could not understand how contrapositive of assumption and A are same.

(B) People who have responsibility for small children and who work outside the home have higher stress levels than those who do not.

Argument says: Such laws would decrease the stress levels of employees who have responsibility for small children. This leads to another assumption: employee having small children are under stress.

B says, people who work and have children have higher stress level, reinforcing the above assumption. In summary, though B does not establish conclusion but it does give additional information supporting the evidence and therefore strengthening the argument.

Pls suggest why B is still wrong.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by pnk » Fri Aug 06, 2010 6:58 pm
pnk wrote:
annrae wrote:Mr. Lawson: We should adopt a national family policy that includes legislation requiring employers to provide paid parental leave and establishing government-sponsored day care. Such laws would decrease the stress levels of employees who have responsibility for small children. Thus, such laws would lead to happier, better-adjusted families.

Evidence: Laws --> leave + day care --> decrease stress of employees having small children

Conclusion: Laws --> lead to happier families

Assumption: decrease stress of employees having small children --> lead to happier families

(A) An employee�s high stress level can be a cause of unhappiness and poor adjustment for his or her family.
Contrapositive of Assuumption: does not lead to happier families (ie unhappier families) --> increase stress of employees having small children

While A says: high stress of employees --> unhappier families

I could not understand how contrapositive of assumption and A are same.

(B) People who have responsibility for small children and who work outside the home have higher stress levels than those who do not.

Argument says: Such laws would decrease the stress levels of employees who have responsibility for small children. This leads to another assumption: employee having small children are under stress.

B says, people who work and have children have higher stress level, reinforcing the above assumption. In summary, though B does not establish conclusion but it does give additional information supporting the evidence and therefore strengthening the argument.

Pls suggest why B is still wrong.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1