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

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

Scientist: My research indicates that children who

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 amFollowed by: 12 members
Thanked: 114 times
by patanjali.purpose » Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:40 pm
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.

[spoiler]OA-B; why not D[/spoiler]
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 581
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 7:53 amFollowed by: 5 members
Thanked: 52 times

by killer1387 » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:31 pm
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
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:16 amFollowed by: 14 members
Location: AAMCHI MUMBAI LOCAL
Thanked: 63 times

by [email protected] » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:33 pm
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...
IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT

LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!

Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:01 pmFollowed by: 37 members
Thanked: 54 times

by chris@magoosh » Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:18 pm
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 :).
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pmFollowed by: 2 members
Thanked: 18 times

by tanviet » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:24 am
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
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:21 am

by vaibhav.temani » Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:43 pm
[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.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:42 am

by hjafferi » Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:35 pm
Ii chose D but agree with the explanation provided for B as answer
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: india

by mohan514 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:51 am
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
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:50 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by 7777 » Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:18 am
[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.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1