B directly renders the conclusion invalid i.e. impulsive behavior is indistinguishable then the conclusion is not at all possible.

D talks of adults exhibiting tendencies. Its not in any consideration by the conclusion. Its irrelevant.

hence B

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.



Honestly I chose the answer as E. This is a Causal Reasoning CR. In order to weaken a Causal reasoning cr question follow the steps:

1] if X causes Y, then prove either X happens, Y does not or Y happens and X does not happen...

2] Some third parameter or element causes Y not X.

3] Some third parameter or element causes both X as well as Y.

4] Y causes X

5] Show a data for the same i.e (4)


According to the current question in hand.

The gene variant is X and the thrill seeking behavior is Y.

It says that X causes Y.

Option B: X happens Y does not happen. What this means is that when you cannot distinguish a thrill seeking behavior from other behavior, then even if the Gene variant is present, you will not come to know...

Hence Gene variant present but impulsive or thrill seeking behavior absent.

Correct option....


Option E: The gene variant also causes other behaviors apart from the thrill seeking behavior.
when you say X causes Y in GMAT you should say that only X causes Y.
If the Gene variant causes some other behavior or you prove that thing happened even once, then the argument is weakened.

So according to me both the options are correct. could you please tell me, what is the source of this question. I feel this is not a GMAT cr...

Hope the above explanation will help you to understand...

Interesting question .

Let me frame my question in direct reference to @amit.trivedi's reply.

First off, (B) is a resounding, powerful rebuttal of the scientist's claim (remember we want an answer that most calls into question...
The scientist is making a claim about impulsive behavior in children. However, if impulsive behavior in children is indistinguishable from other behavior, then the whole argument falls apart.

For (E) we have a tempting answer, especially because the word 'correlation' suggest that a causal connection is not definitive. But let's say the gene variant is also linked to overeating (i.e., another type of behavior). How does this weaken claim that the gene variant causes impulsive behavior? In fact, the gene variant could be associated with 50 other types of behavior. That fact doesn't diminish the causal connection-----> Gene variant causes impulsive behavior.

Hope that helps .

chris@magoosh wrote:Interesting question .

Let me frame my question in direct reference to @amit.trivedi's reply.

First off, (B) is a resounding, powerful rebuttal of the scientist's claim (remember we want an answer that most calls into question...
The scientist is making a claim about impulsive behavior in children. However, if impulsive behavior in children is indistinguishable from other behavior, then the whole argument falls apart.

For (E) we have a tempting answer, especially because the word 'correlation' suggest that a causal connection is not definitive. But let's say the gene variant is also linked to overeating (i.e., another type of behavior). How does this weaken claim that the gene variant causes impulsive behavior? In fact, the gene variant could be associated with 50 other types of behavior. That fact doesn't diminish the causal connection-----> Gene variant causes impulsive behavior.

Hope that helps .

Pls, help. I do not know this kind of thinking of weakening. I know that a weakener cast doubt on an assumption . In other words, only if new information invalidate an assumption, it is weakener.

what kind of weakener above is? pls, explain. we need to understand how a weakener works before we look for it.

Choice B above is not contradicting evidence. Is that rigt? I understand that if the argument is said so, the impulsive behavior is clear and B contradict the evidence.

what is source of question? I see that for CR problems many questions in this forum is too hard and too strange. Pls, help, comment

[email protected] wrote:

.......
Option E: The gene variant also causes other behaviors apart from the thrill seeking behavior.
when you say X causes Y in GMAT you should say that only X causes Y.
If the Gene variant causes some other behavior or you prove that thing happened even once, then the argument is weakened.
.......

you are correct in saying that only X should cause Y. If Z also causes Y, argument is weakened. But, as chris@magoosh suggests: X can cause A, B, C, .....Y. Argument holds. X does cause Y for sure + X causes some other things. We just want to make sure that X does cause Y, other side-effects are irrelevant to the argument.

Ii chose D but agree with the explanation provided for B as answer

i could only reach the answer through explanation..

but the powerscore bible principle would definitely coerce to go with E
CORRELATION. SUCH A SMALL WORD CAN get the whole question wrong

amit ji, my approach was exctly similar to yours

[email protected] 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.



Honestly I chose the answer as E. This is a Causal Reasoning CR. In order to weaken a Causal reasoning cr question follow the steps:

1] if X causes Y, then prove either X happens, Y does not or Y happens and X does not happen...

2] Some third parameter or element causes Y not X.

3] Some third parameter or element causes both X as well as Y.

4] Y causes X

5] Show a data for the same i.e (4)


According to the current question in hand.

The gene variant is X and the thrill seeking behavior is Y.

It says that X causes Y.

Option B: X happens Y does not happen. What this means is that when you cannot distinguish a thrill seeking behavior from other behavior, then even if the Gene variant is present, you will not come to know...

Hence Gene variant present but impulsive or thrill seeking behavior absent.

Correct option....


Option E: The gene variant also causes other behaviors apart from the thrill seeking behavior.
when you say X causes Y in GMAT you should say that only X causes Y.
If the Gene variant causes some other behavior or you prove that thing happened even once, then the argument is weakened.

So according to me both the options are correct. could you please tell me, what is the source of this question. I feel this is not a GMAT cr...

Hope the above explanation will help you to understand...

in x causes y, it is not necessary that argument will be weakened if z is also caused by x.
so i don't think that "x causes y" works according to x causes only y and not z. it would be correct if x caused y and if x caused z too.. so here in this problem, if gene variant causes another behaviour too, it's perfectly fine. dont panic.