reply2spg wrote:Source - McGraw-Hills (Conquering Gmat, Drill # 1, Q # 1)

A researcher studying lawyers found that, on average, lawyers took more classess in philosophy as undergrduates than did members of other professions. The research surmised that students who take philosophy classes are more likely to become lawyers.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

1. Many undergrduates who indicate that they intend to pursue a legal career are told by their advisers to take a philosophy course.

2. During a trial, lawyers use their knowledge of philosophical arguments to attempt to influence the jury.

3. Not all students who take philosophy classes as undergrduates become lawyers

4. lawyers are also more likely to have taken classes in public speaking and political science that are members of other profession

5. The lawyers studied by researchers indicated that taking philosophy courses gave them important insight into rhetoric and arguments

OOA later

grockit_andrea wrote:

reply2spg wrote:Source - McGraw-Hills (Conquering Gmat, Drill # 1, Q # 1)

A researcher studying lawyers found that, on average, lawyers took more classess in philosophy as undergrduates than did members of other professions. The research surmised that students who take philosophy classes are more likely to become lawyers.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the researcher's conclusion?

1. Many undergrduates who indicate that they intend to pursue a legal career are told by their advisers to take a philosophy course.

2. During a trial, lawyers use their knowledge of philosophical arguments to attempt to influence the jury.

3. Not all students who take philosophy classes as undergrduates become lawyers

4. lawyers are also more likely to have taken classes in public speaking and political science that are members of other profession

5. The lawyers studied by researchers indicated that taking philosophy courses gave them important insight into rhetoric and arguments

OOA later

The conclusion is "students who take philosophy classes are more likely to become lawyers." This assumes that taking philosophy classes is the cause, and becoming a lawyer is the effect. To weaken the conclusion, we attack that assumption. Choices 2 and 5 can be eliminated because they merely strengthen the correlation while having no impact on causation. Choice 3 is too extreme; we're only talking about likelihood, not about ALL students. Choice 4 is irrelevant; it doesn't have an impact one way or the other. That leaves choice 1, which weakens by suggesting that the causation is reversed: wanting to become a lawyer causes students to take philosophy classes, rather than philosophy classes causing one to become a lawyer.