A study of marital relationships in which one partner's

[georgepaul0071987]

A study of marital relationships in which one partner's sleeping and waking cycles differ from those of other partner reveals that such couples share fewer activities with each other and have more violent arguments than do couples in a relationship in which both partners follow the same sleeping and waking patterns . Thus, mismatched sleeping and waking cycles can seriously jeopardize a marriage.

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

A) Married couples in which both spouses follow the same sleeping and waking patterns also occasionally have arguments that can jeopardize the couple's marriage.

B) the sleeping and waking cycles of individuals tend to vary from season to season.

C) the individuals who have sleeping and waking cycles that differ significantly from those of their spouses tend to argue little with colleagues at work.

D) people in unhappy marriages have been found to express hostility by adopting a different sleeping and waking cycle from that of their spouses.

E) according to a recent study, most people's sleeping and waking cycles can be controlled and modified easily.

OA : D

I fully understand why (D) is correct . So I hope some expert can just address my issues with (E) and (B) .


As per (E) most people's sleep and wake cycles can be modified easily . So if they can be modified easily , then they might not exactly "jeopardize" marriages right ?
So why can't this weaken the argument ?

Also , I'm still not very clear about why (B) is incorrect . This option says that sleep and wake cycles tend to vary from season to season . If this is the case then it might be possible that the couples' sleep cycles might be out of sync for one season and 'in-sync' for another season . So this might also potentially weaken the argument right ?

Can any expert weigh in on this ?

[jnelson0612]

A study of marital relationships in which one partner's sleeping and waking cycles differ from those of other partner reveals that such couples share fewer activities with each other and have more violent arguments than do couples in a relationship in which both partners follow the same sleeping and waking patterns . Thus, mismatched sleeping and waking cycles can seriously jeopardize a marriage.

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

A) Married couples in which both spouses follow the same sleeping and waking patterns also occasionally have arguments that can jeopardize the couple's marriage.

B) the sleeping and waking cycles of individuals tend to vary from season to season.

C) the individuals who have sleeping and waking cycles that differ significantly from those of their spouses tend to argue little with colleagues at work.

D) people in unhappy marriages have been found to express hostility by adopting a different sleeping and waking cycle from that of their spouses.

E) according to a recent study, most people's sleeping and waking cycles can be controlled and modified easily.

OA : D

I fully understand why (D) is correct . So I hope some expert can just address my issues with (E) and (B) .


As per (E) most people's sleep and wake cycles can be modified easily . So if they can be modified easily , then they might not exactly "jeopardize" marriages right ?
So why can't this weaken the argument ?

Also , I'm still not very clear about why (B) is incorrect . This option says that sleep and wake cycles tend to vary from season to season . If this is the case then it might be possible that the couples' sleep cycles might be out of sync for one season and 'in-sync' for another season . So this might also potentially weaken the argument right ?

Can any expert weigh in on this ?

Yes! You can stay out of a lot of trouble on questions such as these by recognize this critical reasoning assumption question type for what it is: a causal argument.

Very simply, the GMAT is using a causal argument when it says A and B are occurring together; therefore A causes B. We see this reasoning all the time in real life, but it's not necessarily correct. The assumption that you have to make is that it's not actually B causing A.

For example, people who are depressed tend to drink a lot. Therefore, drinking causes depression. We have to assume that the depression itself is not causing people to drink.

This is a perfect example. Marital disharmony and different sleeping patterns are seen together. Thus, different sleeping patterns are causing the disharmony. Assumption has to be that the disharmony is not causing people to avoid each other and utilize different sleeping patterns. To weaken an argument we attack this assumption, which is what D does.

When you just stick with this very straightforward approach you'll see that all the other answers may weaken to some extent, but they don't attack the main, necessary assumption to the argument.

I hope that this helps!