Scientists seeking evidence that there is a significant similarity between the perceptual and cognitive skills developed through musical training and...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Scientists seeking evidence that there is a significant similarity between the perceptual and cognitive skills developed through musical training and those used in some kinds of spatial reasoning tested a group of people on various kinds of spatial reasoning tasks before and after three years of music lessons. Participants' overall scores improved only slightly. Therefore, the study failed to provide strong evidence to support the scientists' hypothesis.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Another study obtained similar results with different kinds of spatial reasoning tasks.

The musical training given to the participants was not specifically designed to develop complex spatial skills.

On some of the kinds of tasks presented, no improvement was found, but on certain others, the improvement of all participants was marked.

Among those participants who had music instruction once every two weeks, ratings on the spatial reasoning tasks were comparable to those received by participants who had instruction each week.

There was no significant difference in the development of spatial reasoning skills between those participants who made the most progress in their musical studies and those who made the least.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Scientists seeking evidence that there is a significant similarity between the perceptual and cognitive skills developed through musical training and those used in some kinds of spatial reasoning tested a group of people on various kinds of spatial reasoning tasks before and after three years of music lessons.	What it says: Scientists wanted to see if music training improves spatial reasoning skills, so they tested people before and after 3 years of music lessons What it does: Sets up the research question and describes the study design What it is: Background information about the study Visualization: Study Timeline: People tested → 3 years of music lessons → People tested again
Participants' overall scores improved only slightly.	What it says: The test scores went up just a little bit after the music training What it does: Reveals the actual results of the study described earlier What it is: Study findings Visualization: Score Change: Before music lessons: 70 points → After 3 years: 72 points (only slight improvement)
Therefore, the study failed to provide strong evidence to support the scientists' hypothesis.	What it says: Because scores barely improved, the study doesn't prove that music training helps spatial reasoning What it does: Draws a conclusion from the slight improvement results What it is: Author's conclusion

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by explaining what scientists wanted to prove (music training improves spatial reasoning), then presents the study results (only slight improvement), and concludes that this weak result means the hypothesis wasn't supported.

Main Conclusion:

The study failed to provide strong evidence that music training significantly improves spatial reasoning skills.

Logical Structure:

The argument uses the study's results (slight score improvement) as evidence to conclude that the scientists' hypothesis wasn't supported. The logic assumes that 'slight improvement' equals 'failed to provide strong evidence.'

Prethinking:

Question type:

Weaken - We need to find information that reduces our belief in the conclusion that the study failed to provide strong evidence for the scientists' hypothesis

Precision of Claims

The conclusion claims the study 'failed to provide strong evidence' based on 'only slight' improvement in 'overall scores' after 3 years of music lessons

Strategy

To weaken this argument, we need to find reasons why slight overall improvement might not actually mean the study failed. We should look for alternative explanations for why the results might still support the hypothesis despite appearing weak on the surface

Answer Choices Explained

Another study obtained similar results with different kinds of spatial reasoning tasks.

This choice tells us that another study got similar results (slight improvement) with different spatial reasoning tasks. Rather than weakening the argument, this actually strengthens it by providing additional evidence that music training doesn't significantly improve spatial reasoning. If multiple studies show similar weak results, this supports rather than undermines the conclusion that the evidence is not strong.

The musical training given to the participants was not specifically designed to develop complex spatial skills.

The fact that the musical training wasn't specifically designed to develop spatial skills doesn't weaken the argument's conclusion. The scientists were testing whether musical training (as it typically exists) improves spatial reasoning. If anything, this might explain why the results were weak, but it doesn't challenge the conclusion that the study failed to provide strong evidence - it actually supports that conclusion.

On some of the kinds of tasks presented, no improvement was found, but on certain others, the improvement of all participants was marked.

This is the correct answer because it reveals that the 'slight overall improvement' masks significant variation in results. While some tasks showed no improvement, others showed marked improvement for ALL participants. This suggests the hypothesis might actually be well-supported for certain types of spatial reasoning, even if the overall average appears weak. The argument's conclusion becomes questionable because strong evidence might exist within specific task categories.

Among those participants who had music instruction once every two weeks, ratings on the spatial reasoning tasks were comparable to those received by participants who had instruction each week.

Information about frequency of instruction (once every two weeks vs. weekly) showing comparable results doesn't weaken the main conclusion. This is more about the study's methodology than about whether the slight improvement constitutes strong or weak evidence for the hypothesis.

There was no significant difference in the development of spatial reasoning skills between those participants who made the most progress in their musical studies and those who made the least.

The fact that participants who made the most vs. least musical progress showed no difference in spatial reasoning development actually strengthens rather than weakens the argument. This suggests that even when people improve significantly in music, it doesn't translate to better spatial reasoning, supporting the conclusion that the evidence is weak.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...