Please Answer this Critical Reasoning : abparida

SEEMAB ALAM
#1. January 8th, 2008, at 6:40 PM.

C

Hugo
#2. January 8th, 2008, at 11:13 PM.

I would go for D

Rajib Banerjee
#3. January 9th, 2008, at 1:17 AM.

I think “E” is simply indisputable.

By POE,
A is out of scope
B is taking about different social group, but I would consider kids belonging to same social group..(???? can b argued…..)
C is wrong because the comparison study is done in the same time period
D is absolutely wrong…..”E” is what that can be concluded from the paragraph

Lan
#4. January 9th, 2008, at 1:44 AM.

B

daveparthiv
#6. January 9th, 2008, at 11:55 AM.

I go for “E”.

JJ
#7. January 9th, 2008, at 12:34 PM.

D is the coorect answer.
It supports the conclusion by stating that in 2 simlar communities the aggression rate remained same.
That means the increase in aggression rate in the 1st community is not because of any other reasons but only because of watching TV.
It supports the conclusion

Anirban
#8. January 9th, 2008, at 2:36 PM.

I will go for C.

Siva
#9. January 9th, 2008, at 10:14 PM.

C

Kaushal
#10. January 10th, 2008, at 9:26 AM.

C> demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure.
The first study suggests that children who are recently exposed to television tend to become more aggressive whereas the second study suggests that children who are already exposed to television (communities that have television since 2 decades) dont seem to have a change in behaviour.

mani kant
#11. January 11th, 2008, at 12:54 PM.

I will go with C.

Keshav Malhotra
#12. January 15th, 2008, at 6:02 PM.

I was myself looking for an answer as in Kaushal’s explanation.
However, I really dont think the phrase “no more severe effects”really means what Kaushal has interpreted. It may just simply mean that long term exposure can be equally as severe as short term exposure.
A zero change in agression rate may entirely mean smthng else like
the option B, which would be possible if the same programs were aired in all the communities.
what does TGT have to say?

DDnN
#13. January 16th, 2008, at 4:24 PM.

D. Nothing else other than the introduction of television affected the agressiveness of children in the community described in the first case, as the children long exposed to television remained as aggressive as they were during the particular period of study.
C is definitely wrong as there IS the proven differnce in severity of the effects of television introduction .

Nishanth
#14. January 17th, 2008, at 2:50 PM.

I think it’s ‘E” coz

A) suggest that the prevalence of violent themes in TV programming may be explained by the tendencies toward violence that are deeply-rooted in human nature.
-out of scope-

B) indicate that different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli.
-This can be the conclution of the entire para-not the conclusion drawn from the second para.

C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure.
-Simply Out of Scope

D) support the conclusion drawn from the first study.
-The conclusion of the first study is that exposure to TV facilitates aggression..And the second study does not apporve that .The second statement says that Theres no change in agreession .

E) disprove the conclusion drawn from the first study.
-This is the right answer.

Priyanka
#15. March 24th, 2008, at 10:10 AM.

I will go with E

My Explainations are as follows:
A) OOS as there is no mention about human tendancy
B) A conclusion of the stimuli
C) Faulty Comparison as there is no talk of the agression rate of the second town
D) Against the conclusion of the first as in the first case the agression rate is increasing

E) Thats the answers.

Dynamo21
#16. March 26th, 2008, at 10:50 PM.

what is the official answer…

Although in my opinion it is E

aman
#17. March 27th, 2008, at 1:57 PM.

ans is E

sumanth toom
#18. March 31st, 2008, at 1:20 PM.

My Ans is C.
C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure.

My reasoning:
Lets say that the children’s agression became 160% in ‘first year’ itself and has reached its threshold. So at the end of ‘2nd-year’ also, the rate will remain 160%.
So If I just, expand my above statement in terms of years, by replacing ‘first-year’ by 2yrs and the ‘2nd-year’ by 10yrs, then it just means what option C says.

kv
#19. April 7th, 2008, at 4:50 PM.

e

shobhna bansal
#20. April 29th, 2008, at 2:01 AM.

E

Anu
#21. May 13th, 2008, at 10:15 AM.

E

navyadwkr
#22. June 17th, 2008, at 1:34 PM.

I would say E as well…

B is wrong cuz the second survey ws done with two similar communities that had had television for decades - nd no change in the scenario - thus it refutes the stmt tat different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli..

BY POE - the rem A ,C and D - are wrong.

vineet
#23. July 21st, 2008, at 10:35 PM.

d

shilpa
#24. August 8th, 2008, at 12:37 AM.

E

Arun
#25. September 26th, 2008, at 1:52 AM.

C for me…
A- Goes to much to the reasoning
B- Again the groups involved are nto of concern
D- 1st study helds TV responsible for increase. 2nd shows TV has no increase
E- cant say it disproves because it doesnt say that thr children in 2 communitites are not violent.
C- is correct to me because, 2nd study takes ppl who are exposed to tv for long time whereas 1st are new to tv.
Take the GMat- Answer please

Lalit
#26. September 26th, 2008, at 8:01 AM.

First Of All, we can NOT assume that both groups’ children watched same programme broadcasted. This rules out (A) and presence of a strong word “may” rules out (B). Both conclusions are for “Simillar” groups and NOT “same”. Hence they neither support nor disprove each other. Only left is “C”

Ramz
#27. September 26th, 2008, at 11:20 AM.

Of course, Answer is “C”
Explanation:

1) A: Out of scope as all know.
2) Diff Social groups??…Well, it has been explicitly stated that groups are similar…There itself it goes out of scope and negates the para. No reason to think further.
3) Keep Aside, Simply states that Long term exposure has no more severe effects than short term exposure…
Second Para is clearly in agreement with this. This statement clearly does not negate anything wrt ques.
4)Well…Second para does nothing to support the conclusion drawn from first study.
5) Now “E” is the ricky part.
Second para does nothing to disprove the conclusion drawn from first study. Because time frames are not taken into account due to which “change in aggression rate” does not hold true for children watching tv for long time.
Please understand that “Generating aggressive behaviour” that first study states is clearly diff from “change in aggression rate” for children who have been watching tv for decades.

Hence, Answer is “C”

Deepak
#28. September 26th, 2008, at 12:13 PM.

I will go with option E

Shipra
#29. September 26th, 2008, at 3:22 PM.

(C)

mano
#30. September 26th, 2008, at 5:50 PM.

Please note that the second time the survey is done on two SIMILAR communities not different communities.But the survey happens on communities which are already used to watching TVs before 1973.

E cannot be true, becoz the time for which the communities in Survey 1 and Survey 2 are different had been used to watching TV is different.
It can be that during the initial stages the children might have been aggressivein the community in second survey.

So i think i’ll zero down on ‘C’

Joy
#31. September 26th, 2008, at 6:41 PM.

Hey why not B? Can we not get the OA?

G-Girl
#32. September 26th, 2008, at 7:37 PM.

Hey Guys,

Sorry to disagree with most of your comments but i think it’s BBBBBB.

Why?
A) is really out scope (prevalence of violent themes in TV programs + deeply-rooted in human nature: the author never raises these questions)
C) there is no true demonstrationi that long-term exposure has no more severe effects. The author only states that the study showed no change in the aggression rate, but the latter might be huge.
D and E) the second study neither supports, nor disproves the first study. I we think so, we are misinterpreting.
So what about B? B deals with two different social groups. The trick here is to realize that these two groups are actually socially different.
How? One group is composed of children who had never been exposed to TV programs. The second group of children who had long been exposed to TV programs.
Are these groups different? You bet.
Is the stimuli the same? Yes it is: both groups are exposed to the same stimuli = TV programs during the same period.

Hari
#33. September 26th, 2008, at 9:12 PM.

c

Shobhit Bhargava
#34. September 26th, 2008, at 11:46 PM.

I have a doubt between A and C.. im sure the others are completely wrong!

On the test, i’d go with C

Shobhit Bhargava
#35. September 26th, 2008, at 11:47 PM.

my bad! A sucks! lol

kapil
#36. September 26th, 2008, at 11:57 PM.

i think C
reasoning-the whole idea is that anything can make effect( aggression increased) up to a limit,after some time the effect is mitigated, as in the passage 160% increase in aggression to childrens introduced to TV but no such change noticed to those who are used to it for decades.

kapil
#37. September 26th, 2008, at 11:58 PM.

its just like driving your bike or car for 1st time and driving it for 117th time

jaspreet
#38. September 27th, 2008, at 12:04 AM.

C

G-Girl
#39. September 27th, 2008, at 8:04 AM.

Could anyone answer to my comments because i think this one is really tricky!!! Thanks a lot.

Latha
#40. September 27th, 2008, at 9:41 AM.

I’ll go with C.
But whats the official answer.

Ramz
#41. September 27th, 2008, at 11:15 AM.

G-Girl, check my explanation above….It has not been explicitely mentioned that first and second groups are diff..and secondly, the two groups are simlar that have watched tv for decades.
B seems to be out of scope to me..
C is the only part that does not negate anthing and for which we can say we have suff info.

comments are welcome!

Arun
#42. September 27th, 2008, at 3:03 PM.

C for me

abbi
#43. September 27th, 2008, at 4:15 PM.

can u please send the correct answers to the questions posted?

anirudh
#44. September 27th, 2008, at 5:26 PM.

e

utk
#45. September 28th, 2008, at 10:30 AM.

e —> 2nd result is the disapproval of the first!

utk
#46. September 28th, 2008, at 10:32 AM.

wats d ans ppl

HmmM
#47. September 29th, 2008, at 9:24 PM.

Guys/Gals its two different social groups.
One group did not watch TV before and the other one watched TV for decades.

B is the better answer.

Sapan
#48. October 1st, 2008, at 10:12 AM.

My answer is E.

>> Take GMAT..can you provide us with right answer.

vrutik
#49. October 2nd, 2008, at 2:54 PM.

E.

san
#50. October 3rd, 2008, at 12:24 PM.

Why “C”?
Agression rate has not fallen down. Thus, the effect remains the same for children who have been long exposed to watching TV.
The conclusion is supported in second survey as the aggression rate has remained same and not fallen down.
Answer may be “D”

Lee
#51. October 8th, 2008, at 8:47 PM.

My answer is D.

The common answers in this forum is C. C compares the long-term and short-term exposures to TV, which I don’t think is the point the study is trying to make. There is no way you can tell the effect of long-term exposure to TV by just comparing the CHANGE in aggression rate. The aggression rate from the second study may already be wayyyy higher compared to the group in the first study.

ricky
#52. October 10th, 2008, at 10:34 AM.

E for me.

Chandan
#53. October 20th, 2008, at 9:46 PM.

This seems too confusing while the people are reacting in n different ways. Why can’t we have a one confirmed answer from somewhere? This will help us in the test. I wud prefer that the person who posted the question would post the answer too.

Rajib Banerjee
#54. October 23rd, 2008, at 10:49 PM.

E

Kuldeep Sharma
#55. November 11th, 2008, at 11:50 PM.

As per my calculation the answer should be B