CR assumption

This topic has expert replies
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:59 am
Thanked: 13 times

by iamseer » Sun May 02, 2010 11:16 am
IMO B

The argument concludes that when tinted glasses are worn b'cos wearer has tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal.
So what is the author assuming? He is assuming that there are no other reasons why patients wear those glasses. B states the same.

So, if wearers use glasses to distance themselves from other people thn the argument of the author fails. The argument holds if the author assumes it.


Would really appreciate if the source and OA are provided along with the questions.
Thanks.
"Choose to chance the rapids and dance the tides"

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:41 pm
Location: Chennai
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:660

by vivek1110 » Mon May 03, 2010 12:15 am
P1: Doctors in britain have long suspected that people who wear tinted glasses are prone to depression

P2: Psychological tests confirm the relationship

P3: People who have had a life that is psychologically painful, choose to wear the glasses to reduce visual stimulation because it is perceived as irritating

C: A person who wears the glasses, does so, because he/she is prone to depression


Now, lets take a look at the options

A: This could be an assumption for what causes depression, the causes of depression are out of our scope. Eliminated

B: Nowhere is a relationship between tinted glasses, and distancing from people mentioned in the argument. Eliminated.

C: Causes of depression, again, out of our scope. Eliminated.

D: This need not be the case, the argument doesn't state that the hypochondriac wears the glasses to give a signal to the others. This is again deviating from the argument. Eliminated.

E: This is a necessary assumption in the argument, if the glasses dim the light enough to depress the mood, then the glasses end up being the cause of depression rather than a means of relief from depression.

Only if the glasses are assumed not to dim the light enough to depress the mood of the wearer, will the above argument hold.
Is caught between a rock and a hard place!

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:47 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 68 times
GMAT Score:680

by harshavardhanc » Mon May 03, 2010 12:35 am
akhp77 wrote:Question is in Image

Image


OA: E

Please explain.
two things occurring simultaneously : wearing tinted glass and depression

author concludes : depression is causing ppl to wear tinted glass.

assumption : the relationship is not reversed OR there are no alternate causes for depression.

E is a paraphrase of the first OR condition, i.e. tinting is not causing depression.
Regards,
Harsha

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Mon May 03, 2010 1:06 am
Harsha! I was about to post, but then I saw your post...What a succinct and helpful explanation you've provided!

@akhp77: for a far less succinct (but hopefully as helpful) discussion of how to identify and anayze causal arguments, see: https://www.beatthegmat.com/on-causal-ar ... 56647.html
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto

Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

by akhpad » Mon May 03, 2010 1:27 am
Thanks for good help.

Sometime, when I go through stimulus; at the end, I lost.
I believe that I have to make note of each premises in sort form.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 526
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:47 pm
Location: India
Thanked: 68 times
GMAT Score:680

by harshavardhanc » Mon May 03, 2010 4:06 am
Testluv wrote:Harsha! I was about to post, but then I saw your post...What a succinct and helpful explanation you've provided!

@akhp77: for a far less succinct (but hopefully as helpful) discussion of how to identify and anayze causal arguments, see: https://www.beatthegmat.com/on-causal-ar ... 56647.html
thanks Testluv! actually, the explanation, which I gave above, is inspired by your post on causal arguments. I saw the link to it in Govi's signature. It was an instant fav. and has been in my bookmarks since then. Every keystroke of yours is priceless! Thanks again for guiding us!
Regards,
Harsha

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:59 am
Thanked: 13 times

by iamseer » Mon May 03, 2010 5:34 am
iamseer wrote:IMO B

The argument concludes that when tinted glasses are worn b'cos wearer has tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal.
So what is the author assuming? He is assuming that there are no other reasons why patients wear those glasses. B states the same.

So, if wearers use glasses to distance themselves from other people thn the argument of the author fails. The argument holds if the author assumes it.


Would really appreciate if the source and OA are provided along with the questions.
Thanks.
Flaw in above explanation:

Y(wearing of glasses) is caused by X(depression)

There could be many causes for Y to occur. B is just one of those other causes. So, B is NOT an assumption. B could have been an assumption had the argument been Y(wearing of glasses) is caused by only X(depression).

Thanks for sharing this Q akhp77.
Thanks harshvardhanc for the precise explanation
Thanks TestLuv for the nice post on causal arguments.

@harshvardhanc: I would be grateful if could elaborate a bit more on "OR there are no alternate causes for depression. "
"Choose to chance the rapids and dance the tides"