A certain baseball team has just completed its season

[asker]

A certain baseball team has just completed its season. In stadiums that seat 20,000 or fewer people, the team averaged 1 “home run” -- a ball hit across the field of play and over the opposing fence, called the outfield wall -- per game. In stadiums that seat between 20,000 and 40,000 people, the team averaged 2 home runs per game. Finally, in stadiums that seat 40,000 or more people, the team averaged 3 home runs per game. Obviously, the excitement of playing in front of large crowds motivated the team to hit more home runs.
Assuming that all stadiums during the season were filled to capacity, which of the following, if true, most undermines the argument above?


a The team's leading home run hitter hit more home runs in mid-sized stadiums than in large stadiums.

b The fans in the larger stadiums often cheered against the team.

c The team averaged only 2 home runs per game when playing in the league’s largest stadium.

d In order to create seating for the additional fans, the outfield walls in the larger stadiums were constructed closer to where the batter stands.

e The team’s announcer cited crowd noise as a major motivator for the team.


Was wrongly chose B second again.

After review OE, I decide to ignore this problem. Sport cultural shock for this problem, didn't understand what's "batter", outfield wall, and so on.

But I still have question on B: If these crowds not support the team, cheer against them, then why thought crowds cause home run?

Please correct my thought process on B, I think I may fall into this kind of logic error a lot before.

[Chelsey Cooley]

The conclusion is that the excitement of playing in front of large crowds motivated the team to hit more home runs. A good first step with 'weaken' questions is to stop and think through exactly what the right answer will have to do. It isn't enough to just say 'it'll weaken the conclusion'; how?

In this problem, the right answer will specifically have to show us that the excitement of playing in front of large crowds didn't cause the team to hit more home runs. (B) is a tempting answer because superficially, it appears to prove that playing in front of large crowds wasn't exciting for the team. And if it wasn't exciting, then the excitement definitely wasn't what motivated them. But if we look at it in a little more depth, notice that we don't really prove that the team wasn't excited. All we're saying is that large crowds booed them, not that they weren't excited by playing in front of them. Any connection between booing, and the team's lack of excitement, is just based on your own knowledge.

This is a particular type of 'weaken' question. The conclusion here argues that one thing was the cause of something else. It's very common, on the GMAT, for the right 'weaken' answer to this type of question to provide an alternative cause that wasn't considered in the argument. If we can suggest there was some other reason for the team's home runs, it'd be reasonable to say that the excitement didn't cause them. That's exactly what the right answer (D) does - it tells us that the home runs were less likely to be caused by large crowds, because there's the better explanation that they were due to physical differences in the stadium.

[RahulG312]

Hello,

I feel that the answer choice D is wrong because

question specifically says "a ball hit across the field of play and over the opposing fence, called the outfield wall" and the

answers option says.. " In order to create seating for the additional fans, the outfield walls in the larger stadiums were constructed closer to where the batter stands."

Now the question talks about opposing fence which is the farthest point from the batter and the answer says closer to where batter stands which can be BEHIND, SIDE of the batsman. Therefore it is possible to accommodate more people without changing the outfield wall distance.

Kindly clarify !!

[cgentry]

Hello,

I feel that the answer choice D is wrong because

question specifically says "a ball hit across the field of play and over the opposing fence, called the outfield wall" and the

answers option says.. " In order to create seating for the additional fans, the outfield walls in the larger stadiums were constructed closer to where the batter stands."

Now the question talks about opposing fence which is the farthest point from the batter and the answer says closer to where batter stands which can be BEHIND, SIDE of the batsman. Therefore it is possible to accommodate more people without changing the outfield wall distance.

Kindly clarify !!

Stating that the outfield fences were constructed closer to the batter does not negate the fact that the outfield fence is defined as the fence that's opposite the field from the batter. It's still on the opposite side of the field, it's just closer.

And if the opposite field fence is closer, then that's a different reason for the increased number of home runs.