IMO:A

B,C and D are weakening the conclusion and E is irrelevant to the argument.

OA plz.

Hi Champ, please try again

champmag wrote:IMO:A

B,C and D are weakening the conclusion and E is irrelevant to the argument.

OA plz.

Am confused here.Can we rule any option by stating that it is irrelevant, when the question is "LEAST weakens"? IMO LEAST weakens need not strengthen the argument.

And i think (IMO)answer should be E for the reason

IMO C

IMO E

my view E.
close call between C and E, but eliminated C on the grounds that less practice implies less physically fit.

one more vote for E

E is irrelevant,that's why is not weakening the sentence

rohu27 wrote:my view E.
close call between C and E, but eliminated C on the grounds that less practice implies less physically fit.

Yes nice go Rohu.. I was looking for less practice implies less phy fit.

OA E

i hope this is not an official quest
whats the source

we have been told that X high school teams are larger than Y high school teams .
I think D rather strengthens the argument . I chose C
In D
X doesnt accept freshman athletes and still it has more players than X teams which accept freshman athletes .
The wording that has been used in the stimulus is "The number of players that play for X and Y " so we cant assume that the teams are larger or smaller because the team size has been stipulated .
Why are Y teams smaller inspite of the fact that they accept freshmen .

Thanks for the invite to weigh in here!

A couple things I think are important:

1) It's a WEAKEN question so we want to find the conclusion. One way to do so is to look for the effect of a cause/effect relationship. The second half of the last sentence is exactly that: Because of their greater participation in school athletics, the high school students in Town X are more fit than those in Town Y. The cause, staring with "because" leads to the effect - that the students in Town X are more fit.

2) With weaken questions I like to pay attention to the gap in logic between the facts and the conclusion. Here, they're basically saying:

Town X has more high school students who play organized, school sports; therefore, Town X's students are more fit.

Well, the premise doesn't lead directly to that conclusion. What if Town Y's students play on non-school teams? Or Town X's students participate in non-fitness sports like golf or bowling? Or Town Y is just significantly smaller, but a higher percentage of kids play sports? The sheer number of students playing on school sports teams does not lead directly to a greater average fitness level.

So...with that in mind I'd check the answer choices to see how they fit that gap in logic:

A) Town X is more populated than Y - yeah, this matches one of our proposed weaknesses. Y could have a higher percentage...X may just have a higher overall number because it's that much bigger. A weakens.

B) Most Town Y kids play on Town X's teams - this really weakens it...it explains the low number from town Y and also takes a shot at the number from Town X. Weakens.

C) This shows why Town X's sports participation may not lead directly to fitness. Maybe they just don't work too hard and being on the team doesn't make anyone any more fit. Weakens.

D) This shows why Town Y's lower school sports team rate may not mean that those kids aren't playing sports. Maybe they're playing on an even more elite, workout-intensive team. Weakens.

E) This one actually strengthens the argument. Not only does Town Y have fewer students who participate in sports, but it has 4 classes' worth of students eligible to do so whereas Town X has only 3 classes yet still has more. From this answer choice, it's even more likely that the students from Town X are more fit - with 3/4 the eligible population they have more participants!


I hope that helps...

Brian i think u r bringing in outside information about the number of classes to explain E . Where does the stimulus mention about the number of classes

@HSPA:

I got my mistake.
An introduction of an alternatice explination weakens the srgument. So A does weaken.

Thanx

As Far as C is concerned , What if team X plays for 8 hrs per week and team y plays for 10 hrs perweek . This does not necessarily mean that Team X is less fit than Team Y

Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Thanks for the invite to weigh in here!

A couple things I think are important:

1) It's a WEAKEN question so we want to find the conclusion. One way to do so is to look for the effect of a cause/effect relationship. The second half of the last sentence is exactly that: Because of their greater participation in school athletics, the high school students in Town X are more fit than those in Town Y. The cause, staring with "because" leads to the effect - that the students in Town X are more fit.

2) With weaken questions I like to pay attention to the gap in logic between the facts and the conclusion. Here, they're basically saying:

Town X has more high school students who play organized, school sports; therefore, Town X's students are more fit.

Well, the premise doesn't lead directly to that conclusion. What if Town Y's students play on non-school teams? Or Town X's students participate in non-fitness sports like golf or bowling? Or Town Y is just significantly smaller, but a higher percentage of kids play sports? The sheer number of students playing on school sports teams does not lead directly to a greater average fitness level.

So...with that in mind I'd check the answer choices to see how they fit that gap in logic:

A) Town X is more populated than Y - yeah, this matches one of our proposed weaknesses. Y could have a higher percentage...X may just have a higher overall number because it's that much bigger. A weakens.

B) Most Town Y kids play on Town X's teams - this really weakens it...it explains the low number from town Y and also takes a shot at the number from Town X. Weakens.

C) This shows why Town X's sports participation may not lead directly to fitness. Maybe they just don't work too hard and being on the team doesn't make anyone any more fit. Weakens.

D) This shows why Town Y's lower school sports team rate may not mean that those kids aren't playing sports. Maybe they're playing on an even more elite, workout-intensive team. Weakens.

E) This one actually strengthens the argument. Not only does Town Y have fewer students who participate in sports, but it has 4 classes' worth of students eligible to do so whereas Town X has only 3 classes yet still has more. From this answer choice, it's even more likely that the students from Town X are more fit - with 3/4 the eligible population they have more participants!


I hope that helps...

Hi Brain,

I'd like to discuss couple of things here. I could eliminate B & D. I think this is bad a question. Here are reasons:

(A) There are more high school students in Town X than in Town Y.
option A talks about the quantity( no. of HS students). Based on the statement that more no. of HSS in town X doesn't mean they are more physically fit. Number of students has no correlation with level of fitness.

(C) High school sports teams in Town X play and practice for fewer hours per week than do high school sports teams in Town Y.
This option requires an assumption : less play & practice means less physically fit. What if someone is more fit and requires less of play & practice.

Please let me know?
Thanks,
M09