"legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents"

Any assumption should strengthen the conclusion above.

C should be the correct answer

I had also marked C. OA is D.

I don't understand how.

D seems out of scope.

Hi!

What would happen if most parents did NOT refuse to purchase these games for their kids? It would mean that the legislation failed to be effective. Accordingly, the doctor is depending on the assumption that most parents will refuse to buy videogames for their kids.

Because the question is asking for an assumption on which the argument depends, you can ask what would happen to the argument without the answer choice (or take its opposite). If the argument then falls apart, you know the author is depending on it.

C is not correct because in order for the doctor's argument to work (that legislation will curb the problem), it does not need to depend on the idea that there are no other ways the syndrome can be caused.

ok i can see why C is wrong but I am still not convinced about D being right, although thats the only choice left after elimination. The reason D cannot be right is assumption answer choices cannot contain extraneous information. It has been stated in the power score bible. So facts about parents is extraneous.

I am assuming actual GMAT won't give us such controversial questions?

Or have I not understood the concept right?

Hi punitkaur,

First, I would point out that just because it is called a "bible" does not make it gospel truth. However, it is true that answer choices must fall within the scope of the argument. The problem is you are assuming that just because the choice talks about "parents" it is extraneous. That is not the case. The aim of the legislation is to limit kids' exposure to carpel-tunnel causing video-games. As such, parents who can buy games for the kids is very much within the scope of the argument.

I think this is a fair and valid GMAT style question.

Thanks testluv, I will keep this in mind. I was very poor in CR but I improved after reading the powerscore, so I was just going by what was stated in that book. But as you said its not gospel . Its good to know. Your explanation seems to be convincing. May be if I come across more examples like these, I will be able to make out when to consider a choice out of scope and when not to.

Again, thanks for the explanation. It was very helpful

Hi punitkaur,

Sometimes choices can seem outside of the scope but are actually within the scope. The lesson is don't assume it is outisde of the scope just because of presence of a term. Because it talked about video games, D was within scope. It happens more often in Strengthen and weaken questions (than in assumption questions) that a choice seems to be outside of the scope but is actually within the scope.

I think this one was fairly easy.

The author is arguing that legislation would curb the pains of carpel tunnel syndrome on children.

A- Irrelevant. This is about if it were to exist, not the means by which it could.

We can group B & C as saying the following:

"Not all video game players get carpel tunnel syndrome, and not all kids with carpel tunnel syndrome play video games."

Even if we assume these to be true (which we do), it doesn't really hurt the argument. Why? Because we're not looking to eradicate the problem entirely. The argument is only that this problem will be "curbed." Sure, this legislation won't fix everything, but it will "curb" the problem for the vast majority of kids who do play video games and have CTS.

E- Irrelevant ^ n


So, we are left with (D), our answer. D is the only choice that actually seriously attacks the argument, because if this legislation is passed and assumed to be a success, it is only because kids now buy video games much less. However, if parents just buy the games and give it to their kids, the legislation wouldn't be as successful. Therefore, the assumption that parents won't do this is needed.

Hope that helped.

Hi!

D does not "attack the argument" although the negation of D does seriously attack the argument. In assumption questions, you have to avoid choices that attack the argument (it would be odd that in order for the argument to be correct, the arguer needs to assume something that attacks his own argument).