Carpal tunnel

[mundasingh123]

Source Forum posted by Someone
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.


The guy who posted thisw question on the forum said the OA is D.
I agree on D but I feel C serves equally well.
If the carpal syndrome can be caused by things other than video games.then why will be the syndrome be curbed.
Curbed means stopped.
To undermine D , what if the adolscents are able to borrow the games from some of the older persons.

[fitzgerald23]

To eliminate C you have to go back to the passage and see where they have the evidence that adolescents who play games are 3x more likely to develop carpal tunnel syndrome. Based on that there is already a proven correlation between games and the condition. Choice C does tell you that there could be other causes which is likely the reason the group who does not play video games have it, but it still cant explain why the video gamers would not be helped by the new law.

[Salman Ghaffar]

Curb actually means restrain, and not stop.

The way I check for assumptions is that an assumption is a statement which, if negated and plugged into the argument, would make the conclusion invalid.

Hence:
If playing video games is NOT the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome (the negation of option C) even then the prohibition of sale of video games to minors will still help to curb the problem. It's a bit like saying that while smoking does cause lung cancer, the prohibition on smoking would do nothing to reduce the problem as there are other ways of getting the disease. That logic is flawed. So C is not the answer.

However, the negation of option D (that is if most parents would NOT refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children) would mean that the prohibition would not be effective as the games will still be available to minors through their parents. That would make the prohibition ineffective. Hence D is the correct answer.

Hope that helps.

[GMATGuruNY]

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?

I received a PM asking me to comment.

Premise: Adolescents who play video games get carpal tunnel.
Conclusion: A law that prohibits the sale of video games to minors will curb carpal tunnel among adolescents.
Assumption: Sale = playing. The argument connects the sale of the video games with the playing of the video games. It assumes that if the games are not sold to adolescents, then the adolescents won't be able to play them.

The correct answer will state this assumption: that the minors will not be able to play the video games if the games are not sold to them.

(A) The majority of federal legislators would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of video games to minors. Out of scope. The argument is not about whether legislators would vote for the law.
(B) Not all adolescents who play video games on a regular basis suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome. This would weaken the conclusion. Since we're trying to connect the premise to the conclusion, any answer choice that weakens the conclusion is incorrect.
(C) Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome. Too extreme. The argument does not assume that playing video games is the only way to get carpal tunnel; it says only that playing video games is one way to get carpal tunnel.
(D) Most parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children. Correct. The argument assumes that if the games are not sold to adolescents, then the adolescents won't be able to play them. It assumes that other people will not purchase the video games and give them to the adolescents.

Also, this answer choice passes the negation test. The assumption is something that must be true for the argument to be valid. Thus, when the correct answer is negated, it must invalidate the conclusion of the argument. Reversed, answer choice D would say:

Most parents would be eager to purchase video games for their adolescent children.

If parents purchase the video games and give them to the adolescents, then the adolescents will still be able to play the video games, invalidating the conclusion of the argument.

(E) The regular playing of video games by adolescents does not produce such beneficial effects as better hand-eye coordination and improved reaction time. Out of scope. The argument is only about carpal tunnel.

[arora007]

I am back on the forums after quite a while.. and saw this question...
strangely got it wrong again...

I shall remember as Guru said..In an assuptions question:
when the correct answer is negated, it must invalidate the conclusion of the argument.

[ChessWriter]

I am posting my negations of the answer options as practise for Assumption questions. Anyone who wants an assumption question answered in detail may send me a private message. I will attempt the question and offer a detailed explanation.

The dilemma in this question is between C and D, both of which appear very close to me. But negation proves D to be the correct answer.


(A) The majority of federal legislators would vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of video games to minors.
The majority of federal legislators would NOT vote for a bill that prohibits the sale of video games to minors.
[red]Irrelevent because the question is asking what would happen once the legislation is already passed.[/red]


(B) Not all adolescents who play video games on a regular basis suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.
ALL adolescents who play video games on a regular basis suffer from carpal tunnel syndrome.
[red]Negating this would actually strengthen the argument. Hence it is incorrect[/red]

(C) Playing video games is the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.
Playing video games is NOT the only way an adolescent can develop carpal tunnel syndrome.
[green]This negation will also not destroy the argument because even if there are other ways an adolescent can get Carpal Tunnel syndrome, he will be benefitted by decreased sales of Video games[/green]

(D) Most parents would refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.
Most parents would NOT refuse to purchase video games for their adolescent children.
[/green]If parents do not refuse to buy video games for children then children will still be able to play these games and the effect of this legislation will be decreased[green]

(E) The regular playing of video games by adolescents does not produce such beneficial effects as better hand-eye coordination and improved reaction time.
The regular playing of video games by adolescents PRODUCES such beneficial effects as better hand-eye coordination and improved reaction time.
[red]Irrelevent[/red]