Question not clear at all!!

Expert replies

dextar: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 100; Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:08 amFollowed by: 1 member; Location: INDIA; Thanked: 3 times

by dextar » Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:17 pm

A researcher studying drug addicts found that , on average, they tend to manipulate other people a great deal more than non-addicts do. The researcher concluded that people who frequently manipulate other people are likely to become addicts.

1) After becoming addicted to drugs, drug addicts learn to manipulate other people as a way of obtaining drugs.
2) Some non addicts manipulate other people more than some addicts do.
3) The addicts that the researcher studied were often unsuccessful in obtaining what they wanted when they manipulated other people.

I'm totally stumped here. Pls any one explain me in detail how to proceed.

Like this post

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:17 pm

AleksandrM: Legendary Member; Posts: 566; Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:01 am; Location: Philadelphia; Thanked: 31 times; GMAT Score:640

by AleksandrM » Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:46 am

You didn't include the question.

https://second-lap.blocked/

Like this post

rey.fernandez: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 83; Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 9:05 pmFollowed by: 2 members; Thanked: 21 times

by rey.fernandez » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:53 am

A researcher studying drug addicts found that , on average, they tend to manipulate other people a great deal more than non-addicts do. The researcher concluded that people who frequently manipulate other people are likely to become addicts.

1) After becoming addicted to drugs, drug addicts learn to manipulate other people as a way of obtaining drugs.
2) Some non addicts manipulate other people more than some addicts do.
3) The addicts that the researcher studied were often unsuccessful in obtaining what they wanted when they manipulated other people.

True, dextar didn't include the question, but I'm willing to bet it's a "find the assumption that supports the argument" question.

If that's the case, then the answer is (3). The researcher noticed a correlation between two phenomena: manipulation and addiction. He/She concluded that there was a causation such that manipulation causes addiction. This is the conclusion of the argument.

Now, in making this conclusion, the researcher assumes that the other model of causation is not happening, namely that addiction to drugs causes people to be more manipulative. This is the big assumption upon which the argument rests.

(1) is no good: it actually contradicts the argument's conclusion by saying that addiction leads to manipulation. We're looking for an answer that says that addiction DOES NOT lead to manipulation.
(2) is no good: it's out of scope by introducing a distinction between some addicts and some non-addicts. The correct answer is always very closely related to the conclusion of the argument. This answer choice is not.
(3) tells us that drug addiction does not lead to manipulation.

What's the source of this question? Why are there only three answer choices?

Rey

Rey Fernandez
Instructor
Manhattan GMAT

Like this post

Stuart@KaplanGMAT: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 3225; Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pmFollowed by: 614 members; Location: Toronto; Thanked: 1710 times; GMAT Score:800

by Stuart@KaplanGMAT » Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:32 pm

rey.fernandez wrote:
A researcher studying drug addicts found that , on average, they tend to manipulate other people a great deal more than non-addicts do. The researcher concluded that people who frequently manipulate other people are likely to become addicts.

1) After becoming addicted to drugs, drug addicts learn to manipulate other people as a way of obtaining drugs.
2) Some non addicts manipulate other people more than some addicts do.
3) The addicts that the researcher studied were often unsuccessful in obtaining what they wanted when they manipulated other people.
True, dextar didn't include the question, but I'm willing to bet it's a "find the assumption that supports the argument" question.

If that's the case, then the answer is (3). The researcher noticed a correlation between two phenomena: manipulation and addiction. He/She concluded that there was a causation such that manipulation causes addiction. This is the conclusion of the argument.

Now, in making this conclusion, the researcher assumes that the other model of causation is not happening, namely that addiction to drugs causes people to be more manipulative. This is the big assumption upon which the argument rests.

(1) is no good: it actually contradicts the argument's conclusion by saying that addiction leads to manipulation. We're looking for an answer that says that addiction DOES NOT lead to manipulation.
(2) is no good: it's out of scope by introducing a distinction between some addicts and some non-addicts. The correct answer is always very closely related to the conclusion of the argument. This answer choice is not.
(3) tells us that drug addiction does not lead to manipulation.

What's the source of this question? Why are there only three answer choices?

Rey

I'll play the game too and guess that this is a "weaken" question instead (in large part because I don't agree that (3) is an assumption required by the argument - the success of the manipulation is outside the scope).

The argument itself follows a classic causation pattern:

Study shows that X and Y go together.
Therefore, X causes Y.

Every time an author moves from events occuring together to a conclusion that there's a causal link, the author is making 3 assumptions:

(i) it's not just coincidence;
(ii) there's no overriding cause for both phenomena (i.e. it's not just a correlation); and
(iii) the stated cause and effect aren't backward.

In the argument posted above, (iii) is the relevant assumption. The author says that X and Y occur together, therefore X causes Y. However, the author overlooks the possibility that Y causes X instead.

Our prediction for a weakener: Drug addicts frequently become manipulators.

Looking at the choices provided, (1) is a perfect match.

Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto

Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course

Like this post

dextar: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 100; Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:08 amFollowed by: 1 member; Location: INDIA; Thanked: 3 times

by dextar » Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:26 pm

wao What shd I say now!!!

Quite rite I forgot to include the question. However the heartening thing to see is that ppl are still replying.

I apologize for not including the question

And Stuart is always rite

. Yes this indeed is the weaken the argument question.

Nice explanation Stuart .Learnt something new today.

By the way can u pls explain the 1st and 2 nd assumption that u took with some examples?

Like this post

nicolette: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 197; Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:03 am

by nicolette » Fri May 13, 2016 12:55 am

I will Go with option 1 in this case

Like this post

Post new topic Post Reply

• Page 1 of 1

GMAT Course Reviews

559 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (560 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review