Scientist: My research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have a gene variant that increases sensitivity to dopamine. From this, I conclude that there is a causal relationship between this gene variant and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior.
Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the scientist's argument?
A) Many impulsive adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine.
B) It is not possible to reliably distinguish impulsive behavior from other behavior.
C) Children are often described by adults as engaging in thrill-seeking behvaior simply because they act impulsively.
D) Many people exhibit behavioral tendencies as adults that they did not exhibit as children.
E) The gene variant studied by the scientist is correlated with other types of behavior in addition to thrill-seeking behavior.
Ta
Following question falls under what type of CR question
This topic has expert replies
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:23 am
- Location: Madison, WI
- Thanked: 17 times
In the question stem, replace "calls into question" with "weaken". It reads
"Which of the following, if true, most weakens the scientist's argument"
Which is obviously a weaken problem.
"Which of the following, if true, most weakens the scientist's argument"
Which is obviously a weaken problem.
- Tani
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
- Location: St. Louis
- Thanked: 312 times
- Followed by:90 members
From another perspective, this is also a "causal" argument. The conclusion says one thing "causes" another. WIth such arguments we always first look for "overlooked" causes. In other words, if we are told that X causes Y. To weaken we should first ask whether Z causes Y. We can also ask whether Y causes x (rare), or whether the relationship is pure coincidence.
Tani Wolff
I go with C.Nullifying the effect of gene variantvidhya16 wrote:Scientist: My research indicates that children who engage in impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as other children to have a gene variant that increases sensitivity to dopamine. From this, I conclude that there is a causal relationship between this gene variant and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior.
Which one of the following, if true, most calls into question the scientist's argument?
A) Many impulsive adults are not unusually sensitive to dopamine.
B) It is not possible to reliably distinguish impulsive behavior from other behavior.
C) Children are often described by adults as engaging in thrill-seeking behvaior simply because they act impulsively.
D) Many people exhibit behavioral tendencies as adults that they did not exhibit as children.
E) The gene variant studied by the scientist is correlated with other types of behavior in addition to thrill-seeking behavior.
Ta
- Tani
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:08 pm
- Location: St. Louis
- Thanked: 312 times
- Followed by:90 members
B says you can't tell impulsive behavior from other behavior. If you can't tell whether behavior is impulsive or not, how can you tell whether it is correlated with a gene?
Tani Wolff
- Target2009
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:5 members
IMO - E.
Weaken by stating other cause of result.
Weaken by stating other cause of result.
Regards
Abhishek
------------------------------
MasterGmat Student
Abhishek
------------------------------
MasterGmat Student