Q22 - Researchers have found that children

[sranksonly]

Can someone pls explain why answer choice E is the right answer.I chose B.

Thanks for helping.

[linzhu2]

I also chose (A) and I'm still not 100% sure why it is wrong?

However, I can explain why (B) is wrong. Researchers are trying to explain the phenomenon that children from larger families are less likely to suffer from allergies. Their hypothesis is basically:

Larger families (exposure to more children) => Greater likelihood of exposure to germs during infancy => Less likely to develop allergies

So you are looking for something that strengthens this hypothesis.

(B) is wrong because it is saying that children in smaller families eat more allergy-causing foods than children in big families - this actually weakens the researchers' hypothesis because it provides an alternate cause for why children in smaller families suffer more allergies.

(E) is right because it says that children from small families who enter day care before age one (i.e. children who are exposed to more children at an early age, therefore mimicking the environment of a large family) are less likely to suffer from allergies than children who entered day care at a late age (i.e. children who were not exposed to other kids at an early age). This provides support for the researchers' hypothesis by demonstrating another situation where exposure to more children at an early age leads to less allergies.

Hopefully that helps. Any insight into why (A) is wrong is greatly appreciated, thanks in advance!

[maryadkins]

This is a strengthen question. The core is:

children in large families have fewer allergies than children in small families

-->

exposure to germs during infancy makes people less likely to develop allergies

Maybe there's another reason for this, though. Maybe large families tend to live in areas with fewer allergens. Who knows?

(A) is tempting, but who has the additional allergies? Children? Adults? We don't know. It associates two phenomena, but not in a very strong way. There's a very weak correlation between them here. Look for a better answer.

(B) weakens the argument. This offers a different reason why children in small families may be having more allergic reactions.

(C) is entirely out of scope.

(D) is also out of scope. We're concerned about the discrepancy between children from small families and children from large families.

(E) is correct. If among ONLY children from small families, the ones who enter day care as infants are less likely to have allergies, that gives us more evidence that exposure to other childrens' germs is what's doing the work. This is stronger support than (A)'s weak support.

[irene122]

I initially narrow down to A & E, and choose E because:

A is flawed because it concerns "children", which is a scope shift from hypothesis "during infancy"

E "enter day care before age one" correspondes to the scope in the hypothesis "exposure to germs during infancy".

[jennifer]

does the word average in answer choice A have any bearing on why the answer is incorrect? For example the average # of children could have gone from 10 to 8 per family, but that would still be a large family?

[noah]

does the word average in answer choice A have any bearing on why the answer is incorrect? For example the average # of children could have gone from 10 to 8 per family, but that would still be a large family?

I agree - good catch! In retrospect, it's quite odd that the stimulus talks about large and small families, not larger and smaller.

Keep up the close reading!

[noah]

A is flawed because it concerns "children", which is a scope shift from hypothesis "during infancy"

E "enter day care before age one" correspondes to the scope in the hypothesis "exposure to germs during infancy".

I disagree with your analysis of (A). The reference to children per family doesn't take us off topic. It's a safe jump to assume that those children were infants. Take a look at Mary's analysis above. The shift is actually from the stimulus talking about the incidence of allergies within a family, to (A) talking about national allergy rates.

You might be overemphasizing this scope approach towards questions.

[shirando21]

A is flawed because it concerns "children", which is a scope shift from hypothesis "during infancy"

E "enter day care before age one" correspondes to the scope in the hypothesis "exposure to germs during infancy".

I disagree with your analysis of (A). The reference to children per family doesn't take us off topic. It's a safe jump to assume that those children were infants. Take a look at Mary's analysis above. The shift is actually from the stimulus talking about the incidence of allergies within a family, to (A) talking about national allergy rates.

You might be overemphasizing this scope approach towards questions.

I agree with Mary's analysis. But is A also reversed? the argument says, more children in a family-->less possible to get allerge, but A is, like of negate the sufficient condition to get the negation of the necessary condition... is it?

[noah]

I agree with Mary's analysis. But is A also reversed? the argument says, more children in a family-->less possible to get allerge, but A is, like of negate the sufficient condition to get the negation of the necessary condition... is it?

Mary's analysis is the way to go, but to explore this with you, I see what you mean about (A), but the necessary and sufficient are not very clear. In my mind, (A) just puts them together (correlation). Perhaps all around the world the incidence of allergies is decreasing, including in countries where the families are getting smaller.

[rgrijalb]

(A) is wrong b/c:

As stated before, no establishment of small family or large family is made.

My reason for noting this answer is wrong, however, was b/c it simply strengthens the correlation, not the hypothesis. This is the same gap already present in the stimulus b/c it doesn't establish that large family has exposure while small family lacks exposure. It may be that small family's have more time to take thier children to playyards, libraries whereas large families are constrained and keep children isolated at home. we want a situation showing us that when exposure is present, or highly inferable, as in (e)'s situation, we have the expected increase in allergy immunity.

[timsportschuetz]

I am baffled that nobody has mentioned the most obvious flaw in answer choice (A)! Notice how the stimulus talks about children in LARGE vs SMALL families! Answer (A) suddenly shifts the scope completely by talking about the average number of children in families! We need to know FOR CERTAIN how many members there are in the children's FAMILY! We do NOT care how many children there are in each family! Would the fact that the average number of children decreased in the families (as per answer A) mean that the OVERALL SIZE of the family decreased? DEFINITELY NOT! What about aunts, uncles, and grandmas living with the same families! Again, we ONLY CARE ABOUT THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE FAMILY (large vs. small) - NOT the number of children in each!

[nflamel69]

You need to calm down. A poster above already mentioned the jump from average numbers to the size of the family, you only made it more concrete with examples.

[Alvanith]

I can see clearly E is the best answer but I feel uncomfortable to make the assumption that entering day care could lead to more exposure to germs. Whenever I have to make additional assumptions, especially for some obvious ones like here, to the answer choice, I feel very reluctant to choose it as my answer for the question.

Could some please help me?

Thx:)

[ttunden]

Looks like I'll have to chime in to answer this question for everyone.

So we have a strengthen, and in the words of NOAH
we have a phenomenon/explanation here.

Phenomenon: children in large families generally have fewer allergies than children in small families

explanation: Exposure to germs during INFANCY -> less likely to develop allergies

okay so ways we can strengthen the explanation is to eliminate ALTERNATE cause/explanation for the phenomenon or perhaps find an answer choice that enforces the stated explanation (hypothetical situation that subscribes to the stated explanation)

A- Mary's explanation for eliminating this is pretty good. I would use hers to eliminate this. too ambiguous. Adults getting more allergies? teenagers? who?
B- no this would be an alternate cause, so it weakens the explanation. GET RID
C- just out of scope, who cares about diseases. Irrelevant really.
D- nah this sounds more like an alternate cause/explanation for the observed phenomenon. Makes it sound like it is due to genetic factors and not due to the stated explanation in the stimulus.

E- left with this and it works out pretty well. It is a hypothetical situation that subscribes to the stated principle.

Don't worry about large and small families in the stimulus, it's really important to act upon the explanation/conclusion. Originally during the PT, I was looking for something that would strengthen large families or something discussing large families but E strengthens conclusion from the angle that we prephased.

IF you have any questions feel free to message me, i'll be glad to answer them.

[NicholasL580]

A is a trap answer because it merely aligns with correlation presented in the Stimuli. But like most trap answers that align with the proposed correlation/causation, does that fully explain the author's reasoning? The conclusion is "exposure to germs during infancy makes people less likely to develop allergies." Does (A), "In countries where the average number of children per family has decreased over the last century, the incidence of allergies has increased," have any bearing on the conclusion, or the logic of the argument? No, it doesn't have anything to do with whether exposure to germs during infancy makes people less likely to develop allergies. I find it rewarding for all assumption family questions if you stay within the scope of the argument, meaning that you should focus on the premises and how they relate to the conclusion. Again, with strengthen/weaken questions, trap answers will just merely show an occurrence of the proposed correlation/causation. Correct answers, on the other hand, will attack the meat of the argument and have a bearing on the overall conclusion.

[ohthatpatrick]

I don't want to water down your point, but just to clarify:

Providing examples in which supposed cause / supposed effect did or did not occur together is definitely a way of strengthening or weakening that appears in correct answers.

(A) is wrong, as you said, since it doesn't deal with the supposed cause (germs).

If (A) said "in countries where the average exposure to germs has decreased over the last century, the incidence of allergies has increased", it would definitely strengthen.

Showing an occurrence of the proposed causation always strengthens (it may not strengthen much, but it adds plausibility).

If the author is trying to prove that X causes Y, any example that shows X and Y trending together can add plausibility to that conclusion.

[HyunK463]

I am kinda confused with all these different explanations..
Can anyone help me check if my reasoning is valid?

<Basic Analysis>
Premise
Researchers: children in large families tend to have fewer allergies than those in smaller families do.

Conclusion
We hypothesized that exposure to germs during infancy reduces likelihood of developing allergies.

<Approach I've taken>
So apparently researchers have assumed that "more members in families = more exposure to germs during infancy." And since this is the Strengthen Q, I thought this unstated assumption could go unchallenged.

I concluded (A) was wrong not because it didn't explicitly state the relationship between "exposure to germs" and "the incidence of allergies", but because "the average # of children per family" is not the same as the "the average # of total members within families". So we would have to make an unwarranted assumption that "decrease of the average # of children per family" equals "decrease of the average size of family". But it could be the case that even though the average # of children has decreased, the average # of total members within each family has increased for some reasons.

Is this the sound reasoning?
Thanks in advance!