Akhilesh,

The Doctor in the passage does not say that federal legislation would definitely be enacted.
A) is the assumption of definite enactment of federal legislation.

The Doctor simply says (if) federal legislation is passed, it would help curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents.

Hence A) is ruled out.

Thanks

akhp77 wrote:Source: MGMAT CAT

Doctor: Research shows that adolescents who play video games on a regular basis are three times as likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome as are adolescents who do not play video games. Federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to minors would help curb this painful wrist condition among adolescents.

The doctor's conclusion depends on which of the following assumptions?

A: The majority of federal legislators would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of video games to minors.
B: Not all adolescents who play video games on a regular basis suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.
C: Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.
D: Most parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.
E: The regular playing of video games by adolescents does not produce such beneficial effects as better hand-eye coordination and improved reaction time.

OA: D

I am confused about A and D.

I donot think D is correct answer.

If we negate the answer choice D, we can see it doesn't impact on the conclusion.

The conclusion states that legislation prohibits the sale of video game. even parent doesn't refuse to purchase. no way they can purchase because no one sell video games.

Moreover, i believe answer choice C is correct answer because when we negate it, the conclusion is invalid. so, C is correct answer.

anyone can help me figure it out.

Hi Bupbebeo,

You're on the right track in trying the negation test, and you've stated its purpose perfectly! Let me see if I can help you to make it work. Let's take a careful look at the negations of (C) and (D) and their impact on the conclusion.

To do that, let's first VERY carefully identify the evidence and conclusion. That's a critical step when looking for assumptions.

E: Video games --> 3x likelyhood of Carpal Tunnel in teens.
C: Banning their sale to minors --> less incidence of Carpal Tunnel.

I've bolded three key terms in the conclusion, upon which the correct answer hinges. We've got to make sure that what the Doctor suggests will indeed reduce the number of teens PLAYING video games. So to broadly "pre-phrase" our assumption, we might say: "teens won't find some other way to play video games."

Now let's look at those answer choices. Properly negating a statement can be trickier than it sounds!

C: Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.
Negation: Playing video games is NOT the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.

D: Most parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.
Negation: Most parents would ... purchase video games for their adolescent children.

As you can see, the proper negation of (C) does not impact our conclusion. As an analogy, if playing football makes you three times more likely to get a knee injury, and you are prevented from playing football, you're less likely to be injured. This is true whether or not you still participate in other activities that CAN cause this injury. In other words, eliminating a known cause of something will reduce its occurrence, even if that is not the ONLY known cause.

The negation of (D), on the other hand, DOES negate the conclusion that LEGISLATION on the SALE of games to MINORS will have any impact on them PLAYING video games. If kids will just get video games from their parents, it will make no difference if you don't let them walk into the store personally. Make sense?

Hope that helps!