GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > Studies have established that children who wa...
Start Learning for Free
Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50℅ more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.
( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)
What is the role of the sentences in boldface?
What is the role of the sentences in boldface?
- a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the author's conclusion
- b)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical data
- c)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the author's doubt
- d)The first is a fact supporting the researcher's conclusion while the second is the author's conclusion.
- e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting data
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
| FREE This question is part of | Download PDF Attempt this Test |
Verified Answer
Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV ...
Step 1: Analyzing the Argument
The argument begins by providing details of a study that shows that the kids who watched more TV were more likely to be violent. While a theory exists that the violence portrayed in TV shows is the contributing factor, the author believes that it need not have been violent TV shows but even funny ones that unintentionally motivated crime.
The argument begins by providing details of a study that shows that the kids who watched more TV were more likely to be violent. While a theory exists that the violence portrayed in TV shows is the contributing factor, the author believes that it need not have been violent TV shows but even funny ones that unintentionally motivated crime.
The first statement is the opinion expressed by researchers that the author does not accept. The author questions whether the violence portrayed in TV is the real reason for crime. The author then goes ahead and illustrates an alternative scenario in the second boldface statement.
Step 2: Eliminating Options
The second statement is a hypothetical scenario that leads to the author’s conclusion, which is that the violence in TV and movies need not necessarily contribute to real-life crime. The author’s opinion is not explicitly stated anywhere but simply implied. For this reason, Option (A), which says that the second statement is the author’s conclusion, can be eliminated.
The author is not completely in disagreement with the researchers’ belief. The author is willing to accept that TV watching has an impact, just not necessarily watching violent programs on TV. For this reason, Option (C) can be eliminated.
The first statement is an opinion expressed by the researchers and not a fact. Option (D), which suggests that the first statement is a fact, can be eliminated. Another problem with option (D) is that the second statement is not really the author’s conclusion.
Option (E). The opinion of the researchers is simply a belief and not a “clearly proven” opinion. This is reason enough to eliminate (E)
The researchers are interpreting the study results to conclude that the violence in TV is responsible for crime. The author disagrees with that contention and presents an alternative possibility in the second boldface statement. Option (B) correctly describes what is happening in the argument.
Option B is the correct answer.
The second statement is a hypothetical scenario that leads to the author’s conclusion, which is that the violence in TV and movies need not necessarily contribute to real-life crime. The author’s opinion is not explicitly stated anywhere but simply implied. For this reason, Option (A), which says that the second statement is the author’s conclusion, can be eliminated.
The author is not completely in disagreement with the researchers’ belief. The author is willing to accept that TV watching has an impact, just not necessarily watching violent programs on TV. For this reason, Option (C) can be eliminated.
The first statement is an opinion expressed by the researchers and not a fact. Option (D), which suggests that the first statement is a fact, can be eliminated. Another problem with option (D) is that the second statement is not really the author’s conclusion.
Option (E). The opinion of the researchers is simply a belief and not a “clearly proven” opinion. This is reason enough to eliminate (E)
The researchers are interpreting the study results to conclude that the violence in TV is responsible for crime. The author disagrees with that contention and presents an alternative possibility in the second boldface statement. Option (B) correctly describes what is happening in the argument.
Option B is the correct answer.
Most Upvoted Answer
Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV ...
Explanation:
Role of the sentences in boldface:
- The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against
- The second provides an alternative explanation for statistical data
In this argument, the first boldface sentence presents an interpretation made by researchers that watching violent TV contributes to aggressive behavior in real life. The author then refutes this interpretation by stating that there is no clear evidence that the programs watched were violent. This sets up a direct contradiction between the researchers' claim and the author's position.
The second boldface sentence provides an alternative explanation for the statistical data presented in the argument. The author suggests that perhaps the children watching specific types of TV programs, like a comedy about incompetent cops, could have influenced their perceptions and behavior, rather than the violent content of the shows. This indicates that the author is presenting a different perspective on the relationship between TV watching and criminal behavior.
Therefore, the role of the sentences in boldface is to highlight the contrast between the researchers' interpretation and the author's alternative explanation for the observed data. The first sentence sets up the researchers' claim, which the author challenges, while the second offers a different perspective on the potential influence of TV programs on children's behavior.
Role of the sentences in boldface:
- The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against
- The second provides an alternative explanation for statistical data
In this argument, the first boldface sentence presents an interpretation made by researchers that watching violent TV contributes to aggressive behavior in real life. The author then refutes this interpretation by stating that there is no clear evidence that the programs watched were violent. This sets up a direct contradiction between the researchers' claim and the author's position.
The second boldface sentence provides an alternative explanation for the statistical data presented in the argument. The author suggests that perhaps the children watching specific types of TV programs, like a comedy about incompetent cops, could have influenced their perceptions and behavior, rather than the violent content of the shows. This indicates that the author is presenting a different perspective on the relationship between TV watching and criminal behavior.
Therefore, the role of the sentences in boldface is to highlight the contrast between the researchers' interpretation and the author's alternative explanation for the observed data. The first sentence sets up the researchers' claim, which the author challenges, while the second offers a different perspective on the potential influence of TV programs on children's behavior.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Top Courses for GMATView all
Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50 more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)What is the role of the sentences in boldface?a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the authors conclusionb)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical datac)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the authors doubtd)The first is a fact supporting the researchers conclusion while the second is the authors conclusion.e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting dataCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50 more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)What is the role of the sentences in boldface?a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the authors conclusionb)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical datac)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the authors doubtd)The first is a fact supporting the researchers conclusion while the second is the authors conclusion.e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting dataCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50 more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)What is the role of the sentences in boldface?a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the authors conclusionb)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical datac)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the authors doubtd)The first is a fact supporting the researchers conclusion while the second is the authors conclusion.e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting dataCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50 more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)What is the role of the sentences in boldface?a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the authors conclusionb)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical datac)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the authors doubtd)The first is a fact supporting the researchers conclusion while the second is the authors conclusion.e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting dataCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50 more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)What is the role of the sentences in boldface?a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the authors conclusionb)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical datac)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the authors doubtd)The first is a fact supporting the researchers conclusion while the second is the authors conclusion.e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting dataCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50 more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)What is the role of the sentences in boldface?a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the authors conclusionb)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical datac)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the authors doubtd)The first is a fact supporting the researchers conclusion while the second is the authors conclusion.e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting dataCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50 more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)What is the role of the sentences in boldface?a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the authors conclusionb)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical datac)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the authors doubtd)The first is a fact supporting the researchers conclusion while the second is the authors conclusion.e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting dataCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50 more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)What is the role of the sentences in boldface?a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the authors conclusionb)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical datac)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the authors doubtd)The first is a fact supporting the researchers conclusion while the second is the authors conclusion.e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting dataCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50 more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)What is the role of the sentences in boldface?a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the authors conclusionb)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical datac)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the authors doubtd)The first is a fact supporting the researchers conclusion while the second is the authors conclusion.e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting dataCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50 more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)What is the role of the sentences in boldface?a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the authors conclusionb)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical datac)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the authors doubtd)The first is a fact supporting the researchers conclusion while the second is the authors conclusion.e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting dataCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50 more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)What is the role of the sentences in boldface?a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the authors conclusionb)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical datac)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the authors doubtd)The first is a fact supporting the researchers conclusion while the second is the authors conclusion.e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting dataCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50 more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)What is the role of the sentences in boldface?a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the authors conclusionb)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical datac)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the authors doubtd)The first is a fact supporting the researchers conclusion while the second is the authors conclusion.e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting dataCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice Studies have established that children who watched 2 more hours of TV on an average daily basis during the first 15 years of their life were 50 more likely to be arrested for property crimes in the country. Researchers believe that these studies clearly establish that violence in movies and TV contribute to aggressive behavior in real life. On the other hand, there is no clear evidence that the programs that the kids watched on TV were violent in the first place. Even if we were to accept that TV watching contributed to the increased crime rate, it need not have been because of the nature of the programs. Perhaps, children who watched programs such as Adams and Samson, a funny sit-com about two blundering cops began perceiving all cops as incompetent.( Bold face statements are given in Underlined format)What is the role of the sentences in boldface?a)The first establishes a theory that the author later clearly refutes while the second presents the authors conclusionb)The first is an interpretation made by researchers that the author contends against and the second provides an alternative explanation for statistical datac)The first is an opinion expressed by someone other than the author and which the author is completely in disagreement with while the second provides the reason for the authors doubtd)The first is a fact supporting the researchers conclusion while the second is the authors conclusion.e)The first is a clearly proven opinion even if the author disagrees with it while the second is an ambiguous opinion that has no supporting dataCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Suggested Free Tests
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
Follow Us
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup