Prolonged exposure to exceptionally violent or chaotic circumstances can cause Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in some individuals. Psychiatrist...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Assumption

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Prolonged exposure to exceptionally violent or chaotic circumstances can cause Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in some individuals. Psychiatrists in Virginia indicate that the proportion of patients coming to them for treatment of symptoms related to PTSD has increased enormously over the previous five years. Thus, either Virginia has become a much more violent and chaotic place over the last fiver years or individuals are more sensitive to violence and chaos than they were five years ago.

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

The number of psychiatric practices in Virginia has not increased over the previous five years.

Individuals with PTSD are no more likely than other individuals to have other psychiatric disorders.

Individuals with PTSD are no more likely to seek diagnosis than they were five years ago.

Virginia is an exceptionally nonviolent and organised environment.

Individuals in Virginia do not live in violent and chaotic circumstances any more often now than they did five years ago.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Prolonged exposure to exceptionally violent or chaotic circumstances can cause Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in some individuals.	What it says: Long-term exposure to extreme violence or chaos can trigger PTSD in some people What it does: Sets up the basic medical/scientific background about what causes PTSD What it is: General medical fact/background information
Psychiatrists in Virginia indicate that the proportion of patients coming to them for treatment of symptoms related to PTSD has increased enormously over the previous five years.	What it says: Virginia doctors report a huge jump in PTSD patients over the last 5 years What it does: Introduces specific evidence that connects to the general PTSD information - shows there's a real-world trend happening What it is: Expert testimony/observational data Visualization: PTSD patients 5 years ago: 100 patients → PTSD patients now: 300+ patients
Thus, either Virginia has become a much more violent and chaotic place over the last five years or individuals are more sensitive to violence and chaos than they were five years ago.	What it says: The author concludes there are only two possible explanations - Virginia got more violent OR people became more sensitive What it does: Takes the evidence about rising PTSD cases and jumps to a conclusion with just two options What it is: Author's conclusion/either-or reasoning

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with a general fact about PTSD causes, then presents specific evidence of rising PTSD cases in Virginia, and finally concludes there are only two possible explanations for this increase.

Main Conclusion:

Either Virginia has become much more violent and chaotic over the last five years, or people have become more sensitive to violence and chaos than they were five years ago.

Logical Structure:

The argument uses the rising PTSD trend as evidence and applies either-or reasoning. Since we know what causes PTSD (violence/chaos) and we see more PTSD cases, the author assumes only two explanations exist: either the cause increased (more violence) or people's reactions changed (more sensitivity). This creates a false dilemma by not considering other possible explanations for the increase in reported PTSD cases.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to find what the argument must assume to be true for the conclusion to hold. If we negate a correct assumption, the argument should fall apart.

Precision of Claims

The argument makes a specific claim about proportions (enormous increase in PTSD patients) and offers only two possible explanations. We need to identify what gaps exist between the evidence and this either-or conclusion.

Strategy

Look for ways the conclusion could be wrong while keeping all the stated facts true. The author jumps from 'more PTSD patients' to 'only two possible causes' - so we need to find what the author must assume to make this jump valid. Think about alternative explanations the author is ruling out or conditions that must be true for the logic to work.

Answer Choices Explained

The number of psychiatric practices in Virginia has not increased over the previous five years.

This doesn't affect the argument's logic. The passage talks about the proportion of patients with PTSD symptoms, not absolute numbers. Even if there were more psychiatric practices, if the proportion of PTSD patients increased at each practice, the argument's either-or conclusion would still follow. The argument doesn't depend on this assumption.

Individuals with PTSD are no more likely than other individuals to have other psychiatric disorders.

This is completely irrelevant to the argument. Whether PTSD patients have additional disorders doesn't impact why we're seeing more PTSD cases or whether the increase is due to more violence versus increased sensitivity. The argument doesn't need to assume anything about comorbid conditions.

Individuals with PTSD are no more likely to seek diagnosis than they were five years ago.

This is correct. The argument jumps from 'more PTSD patients seeking treatment' directly to 'either more violence OR more sensitivity.' But there's a third possibility: maybe the same number of people always had PTSD, but now more of them are willing to seek help (due to reduced stigma, better awareness, etc.). If people became more likely to seek diagnosis, that alone could explain the increase without any change in violence levels or sensitivity. For the argument's either-or conclusion to work, we must assume this alternative explanation isn't happening.

Virginia is an exceptionally nonviolent and organised environment.

This contradicts the argument's logic rather than supporting it. If Virginia were exceptionally nonviolent, it would make the first part of the conclusion (Virginia becoming more violent) less plausible, but the argument presents both increased violence and increased sensitivity as viable options. The argument doesn't assume Virginia's current violence level.

Individuals in Virginia do not live in violent and chaotic circumstances any more often now than they did five years ago.

This directly contradicts one of the argument's two proposed explanations. The argument suggests that increased violence IS one possible explanation for more PTSD cases. The argument doesn't assume this - it actually presents it as a possibility we should consider.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...