A recent research study of undergraduate students

[rahul.gmat]

A recent research study of undergraduate students analyzed the effects of music on human emotions. Each of the 200 participants attended at least 1 two-hour concert of classical music per week over the course of 12 weeks of their spring semester. At the end of the experiment, all of the students filled out a questionnaire assessing their emotional state. Based on the results of the questionnaires, all of the 10 students who attended the greatest number of concerts reported lower stress levels and higher satisfaction with their lives. Also, most of the 20 students who attended the fewest number of concerts reported below-average levels of emotional comfort.

Which of the following must be true based on the evidence presented above?
Most of the 200 participants improved their emotional state and lowered their stress levels.

During each week of the experiment, the participants spent at least 2 hours less on their academic work as a result of concert attendance.

Listening to classical music for at least 2 hours per week improves the emotional well-being of the majority of young adults.

More than 6 participants attended at least 14 concerts during the course of the experiment.

At least some of the students participated in the study in order to gain free access to classical concerts.

(D) CORRECT. We know that 20 students attended the fewest number of concerts, 10 students attended the greatest number of concerts, and the remaining 170 students attended some other number of concerts in between. The term 'greatest' indicates that there are at least 3 different numbers of concerts attended by the students (as opposed to 'greater' to distinguish between 2 different numbers). Since each of the participants attended at least one concert per week during the 12 weeks of the experiment, all of the study participants must have attended at least 12 concerts. Even if the 20 bottom students attended the smallest possible number of concerts (i.e. 12), it must be the case that the next 170 students in the middle attended at least one more (i.e. at least 13 concerts) and the 10 most active participants must have attended at least one more than the middle group, i.e at least 14 concerts. Thus, it must be true that the 10 most active participants (i.e. more than 6 participants) attended at least 14 concerts, as stated in this answer choice. Note that if the students attended more concerts than the minimum requirement, the number of students with at least 14 concerts attended will be even greater, still validating the accuracy of this statement.

No offence but the explanation is ridiculous! How can one be expected to figure out all this. It is CR not some big-time analysis. (C) appears the best answer to me out of the available choices. Also the explanation for (D) assumes 12 as the least number... how?
Further, what does 20 people attended these 12 concerts mean? I cant figure this out. Can you please simplify it?

[dbernst]

Unfortunately, this type of question is not that uncommon on the GMAT. The key to understanding inference/draw a conclusion questions is to recognize that the correct answer must be DIRECTLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE FROM THE TEXT. Sometimes, I go so far as to state the phrase "It is true that..." prior to reading each answer choice. This helps me to assess whether the answer choice is provable based on the text.

In this argument we have a few facts:

Fact #1: Each of the 200 participants attended "at least 1 two-hour concert of classical music per week" over the 12 week semester. Thus, each participant, at a minimum, viewed 12 concerts (or 24 hours of concert time, since each concert was two hours long).

Fact #2: Ten students attended "the greatest number of concerts." Thus, these students must have attended more than the minimum 12 concerts.

Fact #3: The 10 students from fact #2 reported "lower stress levels and higher satisfaction with their lives." However, we are not offered a comparison group, so we don't know with whom these students are being compared.

Fact #4: Twenty students attended the "fewest number of concerts." This indicates that there must be at least three levels of concert goers: "Fewest" = 20 students (fact #4), "Greatest" = 10 students (fact #2), and "the rest" = 170 students (fact #1)

Fact #5: Most of the 20 students from fact #4 reported "below-average levels of emotional comfort." However, we don't know how many "most" equals, and we aren't certain whether "emotional comfort" is equivalent to "lower stress levels and higher satisfaction with their lives."

Now, let's look at the answers

(A) Most of the 200 participants improved their emotional state and lowered their stress levels. We have no information about "most of the 200 participants." All we know (from fact #3) is that the ten students who attended the greatest number of concerts reported "lower stress levels and higher satisfaction with their lives."

(B) During each week of the experiment, the participants spent at least 2 hours less on their academic work as a result of concert attendance. No information about academic work is offered in the argument.

(C) Listening to classical music for at least 2 hours per week improves the emotional well-being of the majority of young adults. This is a typical GMAT "attractive distractor" (i.e. an incorrect answer choice the test makers intentionally make attractive.) However, this answer has several faults. First, we have no idea how the "majority" of our concert-goers reacted to the study; we are only given minimal information about 30 of the concert-goers. If we can't even make claims about the majority of concert-goers in the study, how can we make claims about "the majority of young adults." Second, all of our concert-goers in the study listened to classical music for "at least 2 hours per week" (at least for the duration of the study). From those participants that we know about, some reported negative emotional states and some reported postive emotional states. This contradicts the contention that listening to classical music "for at least 2 hours per week" improves emotional well-being.

There are several other problems with this answer, but I want to address this specific answer type more broadly. In general, the GMAT likes to provide a CORRELATION in a text and then claim CAUSATION in an answer choice. This is extremely common on inference/draw a conclusion critical reasoning arguments, and the causal answer choices are almost always incorrect. If you choose an answer choice that claims causation, you MUST be able to prove this causation from the text of the argument.

(D) More than 6 participants attended at least 14 concerts during the course of the experiment. Our facts have proved that there are at least three levels of concert goers: fewest (20 students), greatest (10 students) and "the rest" (170 students). The fewest attended at least 12 concerts (by definition of the study); thus, "the rest" must have attended at least 13 concerts and "the greatest" must have attended at least 14 concerts. Since "the greatest" includes 10 students, it is true that More than 6 participants attended at least 14 concerts during the course of the experiment.

(E) At least some of the students participated in the study in order to gain free access to classical concerts. We are given no information over the motivations of the students.

Hope that helps!
-dan

A recent research study of undergraduate students analyzed the effects of music on human emotions. Each of the 200 participants attended at least 1 two-hour concert of classical music per week over the course of 12 weeks of their spring semester. At the end of the experiment, all of the students filled out a questionnaire assessing their emotional state. Based on the results of the questionnaires, all of the 10 students who attended the greatest number of concerts reported lower stress levels and higher satisfaction with their lives. Also, most of the 20 students who attended the fewest number of concerts reported below-average levels of emotional comfort.

Which of the following must be true based on the evidence presented above?
Most of the 200 participants improved their emotional state and lowered their stress levels.

During each week of the experiment, the participants spent at least 2 hours less on their academic work as a result of concert attendance.

Listening to classical music for at least 2 hours per week improves the emotional well-being of the majority of young adults.

More than 6 participants attended at least 14 concerts during the course of the experiment.

At least some of the students participated in the study in order to gain free access to classical concerts.

[rahul.gmat]

Thank you so much Dan. I really appreciate the prompt response and now understand the problem better. I must say you guys put a lot of effort in your replies. Great job! Seems I did not understand the question properly the first time. Thanx! Also, I apologize for my tone earlier, guess its the GMAT deadline pressure getting to me.

[dbernst]

Rahul,

No problem at all, and don't worry about your earlier "tone"; we instructors have all gone through the GMAT process, and fully understand and relate to the deadline pressure

Thank you so much Dan. I really appreciate the prompt response and now understand the problem better. I must say you guys put a lot of effort in your replies. Great job! Seems I did not understand the question properly the first time. Thanx! Also, I apologize for my tone earlier, guess its the GMAT deadline pressure getting to me.

[nileshdalvimumbai]

More than 6 can actually mean more than 10, so shouldn't there be a bound on the upper limit too.

[tim]

"more than 6" could mean more than 10, but it doesn't have to. you should take what they say at face value and relate it to the information given and what is actually asked..

[kaankoc89]

this question was hot

[jnelson0612]

this question was hot

Hmm, not sure what you mean . . . let us know if you have a question, thanks!

[Mizeds]

Unfortunately, this type of question is not that uncommon on the GMAT. The key to understanding inference/draw a conclusion questions is to recognize that the correct answer must be DIRECTLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE FROM THE TEXT. Sometimes, I go so far as to state the phrase "It is true that..." prior to reading each answer choice. This helps me to assess whether the answer choice is provable based on the text.

In this argument we have a few facts:

Fact #1: Each of the 200 participants attended "at least 1 two-hour concert of classical music per week" over the 12 week semester. Thus, each participant, at a minimum, viewed 12 concerts (or 24 hours of concert time, since each concert was two hours long).

Fact #2: Ten students attended "the greatest number of concerts." Thus, these students must have attended more than the minimum 12 concerts.

Fact #3: The 10 students from fact #2 reported "lower stress levels and higher satisfaction with their lives." However, we are not offered a comparison group, so we don't know with whom these students are being compared.

Fact #4: Twenty students attended the "fewest number of concerts." This indicates that there must be at least three levels of concert goers: "Fewest" = 20 students (fact #4), "Greatest" = 10 students (fact #2), and "the rest" = 170 students (fact #1)

Fact #5: Most of the 20 students from fact #4 reported "below-average levels of emotional comfort." However, we don't know how many "most" equals, and we aren't certain whether "emotional comfort" is equivalent to "lower stress levels and higher satisfaction with their lives."

Now, let's look at the answers

(A) Most of the 200 participants improved their emotional state and lowered their stress levels. We have no information about "most of the 200 participants." All we know (from fact #3) is that the ten students who attended the greatest number of concerts reported "lower stress levels and higher satisfaction with their lives."

(B) During each week of the experiment, the participants spent at least 2 hours less on their academic work as a result of concert attendance. No information about academic work is offered in the argument.

(C) Listening to classical music for at least 2 hours per week improves the emotional well-being of the majority of young adults. This is a typical GMAT "attractive distractor" (i.e. an incorrect answer choice the test makers intentionally make attractive.) However, this answer has several faults. First, we have no idea how the "majority" of our concert-goers reacted to the study; we are only given minimal information about 30 of the concert-goers. If we can't even make claims about the majority of concert-goers in the study, how can we make claims about "the majority of young adults." Second, all of our concert-goers in the study listened to classical music for "at least 2 hours per week" (at least for the duration of the study). From those participants that we know about, some reported negative emotional states and some reported postive emotional states. This contradicts the contention that listening to classical music "for at least 2 hours per week" improves emotional well-being.

There are several other problems with this answer, but I want to address this specific answer type more broadly. In general, the GMAT likes to provide a CORRELATION in a text and then claim CAUSATION in an answer choice. This is extremely common on inference/draw a conclusion critical reasoning arguments, and the causal answer choices are almost always incorrect. If you choose an answer choice that claims causation, you MUST be able to prove this causation from the text of the argument.

(D) More than 6 participants attended at least 14 concerts during the course of the experiment. Our facts have proved that there are at least three levels of concert goers: fewest (20 students), greatest (10 students) and "the rest" (170 students). The fewest attended at least 12 concerts (by definition of the study); thus, "the rest" must have attended at least 13 concerts and "the greatest" must have attended at least 14 concerts. Since "the greatest" includes 10 students, it is true that More than 6 participants attended at least 14 concerts during the course of the experiment.

(E) At least some of the students participated in the study in order to gain free access to classical concerts. We are given no information over the motivations of the students.

Hope that helps!
-dan

A recent research study of undergraduate students analyzed the effects of music on human emotions. Each of the 200 participants attended at least 1 two-hour concert of classical music per week over the course of 12 weeks of their spring semester. At the end of the experiment, all of the students filled out a questionnaire assessing their emotional state. Based on the results of the questionnaires, all of the 10 students who attended the greatest number of concerts reported lower stress levels and higher satisfaction with their lives. Also, most of the 20 students who attended the fewest number of concerts reported below-average levels of emotional comfort.

Which of the following must be true based on the evidence presented above?
Most of the 200 participants improved their emotional state and lowered their stress levels.

During each week of the experiment, the participants spent at least 2 hours less on their academic work as a result of concert attendance.

Listening to classical music for at least 2 hours per week improves the emotional well-being of the majority of young adults.

More than 6 participants attended at least 14 concerts during the course of the experiment.

At least some of the students participated in the study in order to gain free access to classical concerts.

how does it correlate to 6 attending 14 though, from the text they may have had 10 people attend 13, and how can we conclude 6 of the 10 attended 14?

[Mizeds]

Unfortunately, this type of question is not that uncommon on the GMAT. The key to understanding inference/draw a conclusion questions is to recognize that the correct answer must be DIRECTLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE FROM THE TEXT. Sometimes, I go so far as to state the phrase "It is true that..." prior to reading each answer choice. This helps me to assess whether the answer choice is provable based on the text.

In this argument we have a few facts:

Fact #1: Each of the 200 participants attended "at least 1 two-hour concert of classical music per week" over the 12 week semester. Thus, each participant, at a minimum, viewed 12 concerts (or 24 hours of concert time, since each concert was two hours long).

Fact #2: Ten students attended "the greatest number of concerts." Thus, these students must have attended more than the minimum 12 concerts.

Fact #3: The 10 students from fact #2 reported "lower stress levels and higher satisfaction with their lives." However, we are not offered a comparison group, so we don't know with whom these students are being compared.

Fact #4: Twenty students attended the "fewest number of concerts." This indicates that there must be at least three levels of concert goers: "Fewest" = 20 students (fact #4), "Greatest" = 10 students (fact #2), and "the rest" = 170 students (fact #1)

Fact #5: Most of the 20 students from fact #4 reported "below-average levels of emotional comfort." However, we don't know how many "most" equals, and we aren't certain whether "emotional comfort" is equivalent to "lower stress levels and higher satisfaction with their lives."

Now, let's look at the answers

(A) Most of the 200 participants improved their emotional state and lowered their stress levels. We have no information about "most of the 200 participants." All we know (from fact #3) is that the ten students who attended the greatest number of concerts reported "lower stress levels and higher satisfaction with their lives."

(B) During each week of the experiment, the participants spent at least 2 hours less on their academic work as a result of concert attendance. No information about academic work is offered in the argument.

(C) Listening to classical music for at least 2 hours per week improves the emotional well-being of the majority of young adults. This is a typical GMAT "attractive distractor" (i.e. an incorrect answer choice the test makers intentionally make attractive.) However, this answer has several faults. First, we have no idea how the "majority" of our concert-goers reacted to the study; we are only given minimal information about 30 of the concert-goers. If we can't even make claims about the majority of concert-goers in the study, how can we make claims about "the majority of young adults." Second, all of our concert-goers in the study listened to classical music for "at least 2 hours per week" (at least for the duration of the study). From those participants that we know about, some reported negative emotional states and some reported postive emotional states. This contradicts the contention that listening to classical music "for at least 2 hours per week" improves emotional well-being.

There are several other problems with this answer, but I want to address this specific answer type more broadly. In general, the GMAT likes to provide a CORRELATION in a text and then claim CAUSATION in an answer choice. This is extremely common on inference/draw a conclusion critical reasoning arguments, and the causal answer choices are almost always incorrect. If you choose an answer choice that claims causation, you MUST be able to prove this causation from the text of the argument.

(D) More than 6 participants attended at least 14 concerts during the course of the experiment. Our facts have proved that there are at least three levels of concert goers: fewest (20 students), greatest (10 students) and "the rest" (170 students). The fewest attended at least 12 concerts (by definition of the study); thus, "the rest" must have attended at least 13 concerts and "the greatest" must have attended at least 14 concerts. Since "the greatest" includes 10 students, it is true that More than 6 participants attended at least 14 concerts during the course of the experiment.

(E) At least some of the students participated in the study in order to gain free access to classical concerts. We are given no information over the motivations of the students.

Hope that helps!
-dan

A recent research study of undergraduate students analyzed the effects of music on human emotions. Each of the 200 participants attended at least 1 two-hour concert of classical music per week over the course of 12 weeks of their spring semester. At the end of the experiment, all of the students filled out a questionnaire assessing their emotional state. Based on the results of the questionnaires, all of the 10 students who attended the greatest number of concerts reported lower stress levels and higher satisfaction with their lives. Also, most of the 20 students who attended the fewest number of concerts reported below-average levels of emotional comfort.

Which of the following must be true based on the evidence presented above?
Most of the 200 participants improved their emotional state and lowered their stress levels.

During each week of the experiment, the participants spent at least 2 hours less on their academic work as a result of concert attendance.

Listening to classical music for at least 2 hours per week improves the emotional well-being of the majority of young adults.

More than 6 participants attended at least 14 concerts during the course of the experiment.

At least some of the students participated in the study in order to gain free access to classical concerts.

i disagree with your point for c, we are offered a comparison...

"Also, most of the 20 students who attended the fewest number of concerts reported below-average levels of emotional comfort."

Fact: students who attended more concerts had better emotional comfort(ok maybe not a fact but a correlation)

[tim]

how does it correlate to 6 attending 14 though, from the text they may have had 10 people attend 13, and how can we conclude 6 of the 10 attended 14?

read the explanation again. the bottom 20 attended at least 12 each, so the middle 170 attended at least 13 each, which means the top 10 attended at least 14 each..

[tim]

i disagree with your point for c, we are offered a comparison...

"Also, most of the 20 students who attended the fewest number of concerts reported below-average levels of emotional comfort."

Fact: students who attended more concerts had better emotional comfort(ok maybe not a fact but a correlation)

sorry, no. we know NOTHING about what happened to the majority of students, just the top few and the bottom few. be sure to read the answer choices carefully..

[sachin.w]

I chose the answer by elimination.
but is it practically possible to analyze so much about D in 2 mins??

[tim]

who says you have to analyze it in 2 minutes? there's nothing wrong with taking 2 1/2 or 3 minutes on a CR problem if you can buy the time back elsewhere. if you find yourself taking too long on these problems though, you should work on figuring out ways to get faster at the analysis..