Attention Deficit Disorder

[finance]

Attention Deficit Disorder(ADD) is a condition characterized by inability to focus on any topic for a prolonged period of time and is specially common among children five to ten years old. A recent study has shown that 85% of seven-year old children with ADD watch, on average, more than five hours of TV a day. It is therefore very likely that Ed, age seven, has ADD, since he watches roughly six hours of TV a day.

The argument above is flawed because:
A)cites as a direct causal mechanism a factor that may only be a partial cause of the condition in question
B)fails to indicate the chances of having ADD among seven-year-old children who watch more than five hours of TV a day
C)limits the description of symptoms of ADD to an inability to focus for a prolonged period of time
D)fails to consider the possibility that Ed maybe among the fifteen percent of children who do not watch more than five hours of TV a day.
E)does not allow for other causes of ADD besides TV watching

[mundasingh123]

IMO E

[mundasingh123]

OA is B i guess . I dont understand why not E
How do u interpret "besides X". Does it mean "in addition to X " or "Not X , but something other than X "

[AIM GMAT]

I would go with B .

The argument concludes on the basis of info :-

Premise 1 = ADD -- 7yrs age , >5hrs TV
Premise 2 = Ed -- 7 yrs , watches 6hrs avg TV

=> Conclusion = Ed , 7 yrs , avg 6 hrs TV HAS ADD.

The conclusion is made on basis of hours of watching TV , so its flawed as it doent give info about the chances of ADD in kids watching more than 5 hrs of TV .

The reason why E if incase not correct might be that , we are evalauting a specific argument which is talking about TV watching hrs and ADD , so we cant consider that more info is not provided , we need not to weaken the argument by telling that other reason might be responsible for causing the ADD , but we need to evaluate whts wring with the written argument.

[mundasingh123]

I would go with B .

The argument concludes on the basis of info :-

Premise 1 = ADD -- 7yrs age , >5hrs TV
Premise 2 = Ed -- 7 yrs , watches 6hrs avg TV

=> Conclusion = Ed , 7 yrs , avg 6 hrs TV HAS ADD.

The conclusion is made on basis of hours of watching TV , so its flawed as it doent give info about the chances of ADD in kids watching more than 5 hrs of TV .

The reason why E if incase not correct might be that , we are evalauting a specific argument which is talking about TV watching hrs and ADD , so we cant consider that more info is not provided , we need not to weaken the argument by telling that other reason might be responsible for causing the ADD , but we need to evaluate whts wring with the written argument.

But Indicating another cause is a valid technique for weakening causation-effect arguments . i agree that we cant bring in information from the answer choices on to the argument

[HSPA]

Ed has 'r' because he does 'P' and 'S'

r - ADD
P - picture watching
S - seven

Option E says Ed has 'r' which may not be true... 'P' itself is 85% true

E- brings in false and tricky assumption.

[finance]

The argument does NOT suggest that watching TV causes ADD. The given relation is correlation, not causation. That's why It can't be E I think. It's B.

[mundasingh123]

Ed has 'r' because he does 'P' and 'S'

r - ADD
P - picture watching
S - seven

Option E says Ed has 'r' which may not be true... 'P' itself is 85% true

E- brings in false and tricky assumption.

I didnt understand this logic at all . I hate formal logic

[HSPA]

Ed has 'r' because he does 'P' and 'S'

r - ADD
P - picture watching
S - seven

Option E says Ed has 'r' which may not be true... 'P' itself is 85% true

E- brings in false and tricky assumption.

I didnt understand this logic at all . I hate formal logic

Okay.. All I wanted to say is "We must first know that Ed has ADD disease before looking for other causes of disease"

[Geva@EconomistGMAT]

The argument does NOT suggest that watching TV causes ADD. The given relation is correlation, not causation. That's why It can't be E I think. It's B.

This is the reason why E is not the answer - the argument does not attempt to make the causal link at all, but rather states the correlation between the two facts - if ADD -> 85% watch 5 TV for 5 hours or more, and then attmepts to draw the reverse correlation:

If watch TV for more than 5 hours --> must have ADD.

This reverse correlation cannot be drawn, and the percentage of ADD among tv watchers is a separate correlation that needs to be supplied - which is what B does.

[GMATMadeEasy]

@Geva: I could reach until that the author is shifting from correlation to causation , but didnt hit well on B.

This reverse correlation cannot be drawn, and the percentage of ADD among tv watchers is a separate correlation that needs to be supplied - which is what B does.

So what you are saying is that to be able to infer given cause and effect relation, author has to provide data of people watching TV more 5 hrs and having ADD ? and then we can infer about this boy whether he will be a good fit for GMAT (if not suffering from ADD)