I think the answer is A, but the book says it's C.

I would really appreciate a comment from a staff member on this question. The OA just sounds wrong to me.

Thanks a lot!

In an attempt to reduce misbehavior, the junior high school principal has decided to make punushments stricter, including restricting students from having playtime outdoors. However, this action is clearly counter to the principal's goals, as students who frequently play outdoors are less likely to misbehave.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Not being able to play outdoors is unlikely to deter a junior high school student from misbehaving.
(B) Students who have been punished by not having playtime outdoors are less likely to misbehave again in the future.
(C) Students who are well-behaved do not tend to make friends easily and are not more likely to play outdoors as a result.
(D) The principal's suggested policy will not be protested vehemently by local parents who want their children to play outdoors.
(E) Playtime outdoors has not been demonstrated to have positive effects on the physical development of schoolchildren

Aniri,

An assumption in a GMAT argument is implicit information that is unstated but necessarily true. Like hidden nails holding up a table, it is an unseen support on which the argument rests. Since an assumption supports the argument, the negation of an assumption should tear down the argument (remove the nails and the table crumbles).

Here is a quick diagram for this argument:

(1)P Principal: less outdoor playtime -> less misbehavior
(3)C Author: Principal working counter to goals
(2)P Author: play outdoors -> less misbehavior

In this case, the author assumes that the effect of playing outdoors has a greater effect on misbehavior than does stricter punishment.

Right away, answer choices C, D, and E can be eliminated, as they are unrelated to or outside the scope of the argument. Answer choice B is the attractive distractor, as it is an assumption that the principal makes, but not one that the author makes.

Answer choice A states Not being able to play outdoors is unlikely to deter a junior high school student from misbehaving. When this statement is negated, we get Not being able to play outdoors is likely to deter a junior high school student from misbehaving. If keeping kids indoors is likely to deter them from misbehaving, than the principal's plan is not counter to his/her goals and the author's conclusion falls apart.

The best answer is A

-dan

Dan,

The Answer Choice C is mentioned as CORRECT in MGMAT prep CR guide ( 2007 Edition ) on Page 85. It also has a reasoning why this is CORRECT.

Thanks.

yah, it says C is the answer too in one of the MGMT CAT exams.

Aniri, your sharp eyes have found a mistake in our book! On behalf of the company, I apologize for the error. If you e-mail StudentServices@manhattangmat.com, (attn: Danielle), we'll send you a thank-you gift as a token of our appreciation.

Answer (C) is listed as correct, but it really is not correct because the statement about making friends easily is clearly irrelevant. The argument's conclusion would survive just fine if it were true that well-behaved students do make friends easily.

As for answer A, it's basically right, for the reasons Dan explained. (There's some problematic vagueness in the wording of the argument and of choice A, so that I can't say that A is 100% right. If you are very interested in this, and want to see a rather technical discussion of the errors in this problem, you can send me a private message (on this bulletin board) containing your e-mail address).

Regards,

Jad[/i]