Recent research has indicated that married people are not on

[chitrangada.maitra]

Recent research has indicated that married people are not only happier than unmarried people, but also healthier. This study has been widely reported by the media, with most commentators concluding that being married is good for one’s health and attitude.

The conclusion of the media commentators depends on which of the following assumptions?

The longer people are married, the happier and healthier they become.

Married couples who had a large, extravagant wedding are happier than those who had a small, simple ceremony.

Married people cannot get depressed.

Single people with depression or health problems are just as likely to get married as are other single people.

Some marriages are more harmonious than others.

OA: D

Explanation for option C: At first, this statement may seem necessary"”after all, if the commentators conclude that marriage causes happiness, a lack of depression in married people would certainly support that conclusion. However, the statement is too extreme. One depressed married person does not invalidate the research indicating that, on average, married people are healthier and happier than non-married people.

My question is: The option does not say "a married person cannot get depressed" (singular). Instead it says, "Married people cannot get depressed." (plural)

It seems to me that if that is negated, the argument will fail.

[gokul_nair1984]

My question is: The option does not say "a married person cannot get depressed" (singular). Instead it says, "Married people cannot get depressed." (plural).

You are right about this.
The conclusion:being married is good for one’s health and attitude.
1st premise:Recent research has indicated that married people are not only happier than unmarried people, but also healthier.

(C) is first of all too extreme and secondly the premise is a generic statement that (Happiness)married>Happiness(unmarried). Treat this as a weighted average problem, wherein there is depression and happiness in both groups but the overall net positive effect(Happiness-Depression) is greater in married people than in their counterparts.

Ok, another way, I know it's weird though....
Let's assume happiness increases from a scale of 0 to infinity and depression from -infinity to 0

for unmarried people the net result might turn out to be -20 and for married the result might be -10( Just assuming in accordance with Happiness- Depression equation and that there are no other factors determining this result). This proves that even though both groups might be in depression (ie; below 0) but still the net positive value (happiness quotient) is greater for the married group. In short, happiness/depression for a married person or married people here is defined as a relative phenomenon because of the comparitive word (than) and because no clear indications of the exactness of happiness and depression are mentioned.

Does the logic make sense?

[tim]

Thanks Gokul..

Go ahead and negate C. Assume that some married people can get depressed. That doesn't destroy the whole argument, that on average married people are happier..

[750plus]

Sorry

But I don't see this problem as written in an air tight manner. C though far fetched can be a contender for the correct answer.

Thanks

[tim]

Then your job here is clear: You must FIND a way to see the airtightness in this one. Complaining that you disagree with the official answer will never get you extra points on the GMAT (it will probably end up substantially lowering your score, in fact). Instead, if you disagree with a question, try to figure out what the question writer's perspective is and learn to see it from their point of view so that you can get a similar question right in the future.

For this problem in particular, the negation test is particularly helpful. Try that out and you should see what the deal is.

[CrystalSpringston]

Thanks Gokul..

Go ahead and negate C. Assume that some married people can get depressed. That doesn't destroy the whole argument, that on average married people are happier..

Tim, there is no place in the original question to mention the " on average". So that is just a spectulation, correct?

The question is written in a extreme manner, and it sounds like to say "all the married people......". So we cannot eliminate C through negation.

Just fee difficult to understand the logic of it.

[tim]

Based on the way the argument is presented, the "on average" is an implicit part of the analysis. Think about it: if it were not, the argument would be saying that EVERY married person is happier than EVERY nonmarried person. Either way though, it doesn't prevent us from using the negation test on C to determine that C is not a correct answer.

[CrystalSpringston]

Based on the way the argument is presented, the "on average" is an implicit part of the analysis. Think about it: if it were not, the argument would be saying that EVERY married person is happier than EVERY nonmarried person. Either way though, it doesn't prevent us from using the negation test on C to determine that C is not a correct answer.

Hi Tim,
I am thinking maybe I didn't understand the question in a proper way, so that's why I am stuck with C.

If D is the correct answer, that means, some unhappy or unhealthy single people become happier or healthier after getting married. This confirms the conclusion that being married is good for the happiness and health(since it "heals" the unhappy or unhealthy people).
Am I right?

Thank you!

[HimanshuG255]

Can anyone explain me that how did they come to the conclusion that being happy and healthy makes a person more likely to get married from that marriage causes happiness and health.

If marriage causes happiness and health, is it necessary that people are more likely to get married, there may be other reasons to get happy.

Original explanation : Research indicates that there is a connection between being married and being happy and healthy. Media commentators have concluded that marriage causes happiness and health. However, one could reasonably conclude from the research that the cause and effect are the reverse: being happy and healthy makes a person more likely to get married.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Can anyone explain me that how did they come to the conclusion that being happy and healthy makes a person more likely to get married from that marriage causes happiness and health.

Be careful here, I think you've misunderstood the initial argument. Here's my deconstruction:
Premise: Recent research has indicated that married people are not only happier than unmarried people, but also healthier.
Conclusion: Being married is good for one’s health and attitude.
This argument is a classic correlation-causation error. Two things may occur together (correlate), but that doesn't mean that one causes the other. To take a silly example, I can notice that most people who own a Porsche are wealthy, but that doesn't mean that buying a Porsche will make me wealthy. Owning a Porsche doesn't cause someone to be wealthy, it's clearly the other way round. Applying the same logic to this problem, we can accept that married people are healthier than unmarried people (the premise), but then we don't know for sure if being married is the thing causing them to be happy. Perhaps it's the other way round: that happy people are more likely to be married in the first place. Be careful here too: the explanation is not concluding that 'being happy and healthy makes a person more likely to get married' for sure, but that it's another possible explanation for the fact presented. This shows the weakness in the argument: based on the premise, we don't know if the conclusion is true.