Critical Reasoning

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?

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

I had marked answer 3 but the OA is 4.

Can anyone please help me explain this ?

ankit0411 wrote: I had marked answer 3 but the OA is 4.

Can anyone please help me explain this ?

Hi ankit0411:

Let's look at the conclusion first to see which option reigns supreme.

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

We are told that if there is a federal legislation that prohibits the sale of video games to adolescents, then the young people won't have anything to play with and thus carpal tunnel syndrome can be restrained. With that in mind, let's look at the options.

3) Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.
This doesn't have to be the assumption since we only need the playing of video games by children to be just "one of the ways" which causes carpal tunnel. Even if other conditions cause carpal tunnel, it does not negate the fact that if playing video games is decreased, there will be some benefit. Hence this does not weaken the conclusion as much (even though the choice seems attractive on the surface).

4)Most parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.
This is the CORRECT answer. Think back to the conclusion. The doctor's argument asks for legislation banning the sale of video games "to minors". If most parents (and most parents would be adults) bought video games for their kids, (since the parents are still allowed to purchase the games), it would undermine the legislation because the adolescents would get the video games anyway, and they could potentially damage their wrists. Since this option undermines the argument, it is correct.

Let me know if this helps

Conclusion: legislation banning sales to minors would help address carpal tunnel syndrome.


1) Irrelevant; the conclusion is based on the legislation being enacted.
2) The argument is that the risk is increased, not that playing video games guarantees carpal tunnel.
3) The existence of other potential causes is irrelevant to addressing the cause being discussed.
4) Bingo. If selling to minors is banned, then minors must have people over the age of majority purchase the games for them. If parents refuse to do this, then it becomes harder for minors to acquire the video games.
5) We are not concerned with positive effects.