BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

CR Legislators

Expert replies
by kevincanspain » Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:10 pm
Always be wary of conclusions based on the results of a sample or survey- ask yourself whether the opinions of regular patrons of the cinema are indicative of those of the public at large. Could it be that the general public is so turned off by wanton violence and licentiousness that it prefers to stay home and watch reruns of Leave it to Beaver?
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by diebeatsthegmat » Wed Sep 01, 2010 7:02 pm
Anee wrote:Several legislators claim that the public finds many current movies so violent
as to be morally offensive. However, these legislators have misrepresented
public opinion. In a survey conducted by a movie industry guild, only 17
percent of respondents thought that movies are overly violent, and only 3
percent found any recent movie morally offensive. These low percentages
are telling, because the respondents see far more current movies than does
the average moviegoer. The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the
argument
A. attempts to undermine the legislators' credibility instead of addressing their
argument
B. bases its conclusion on subjective judgments rather than on an objective
criterion of moral offensiveness
C. fails to consider the possibility that violent movies increase the prevalence of
antisocial behavior
D. generalizes from a sample that is unlikely to be representative of public
sentiment
E. presumes, without providing justification, that the people surveyed based
their responses on a random sampling of movies

Please explain your answer
is D the answer>?
Join the discussion

by bvn » Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:46 pm
I think it's C

If the argument fails to consider the possibility that violent movies increase the prevalence of
antisocial behavior. Then the respondents prefer violence
Join the discussion

by rajesh.chaudhary » Thu Sep 02, 2010 12:04 am
A. attempts to undermine the legislators' credibility instead of addressing their
argument - argument does not mention anything about the credentials of the legislators. Hence, wrong.
B. bases its conclusion on subjective judgments rather than on an objective
criterion of moral offensiveness - this is out of context answer choice. The central focus of the argument is moral offensiveness, not its definition.
C. fails to consider the possibility that violent movies increase the prevalence of
antisocial behavior - Antisocial behavior is too broad a term for the argument.
D. generalizes from a sample that is unlikely to be representative of public
sentiment - this seems like the right answer choice. I would go with this one.
E. presumes, without providing justification, that the people surveyed based
their responses on a random sampling of movies - this requires understanding of concept of random sampling. This to me is irrelevant.
Join the discussion