CR Tough nut: Television in towns

[cherijose]

In 1973, a remote town first acquired television. Shortly before broadcasts began there, a study was made of children's behavior. A similar study in the same community, after two years of TV, showed that the aggression rate among children of this age had increased by 160%. The conclusion drawn was that TV plays an important role in generating aggressive behavior in children. A similar study, covering the same years, was made in two similar communities that had had television for decades. This study showed no change in the aggression rate from 1973 to 1975. The results of the second study:

A) suggest that the prevalence of violent themes in TV programming may be explained by the tendencies toward violence which are deeply-rooted in human nature.

B) indicate that different social groups may react quite differently to similar stimuli.

C) demonstrate that long-term exposure to TV has no more severe effects than short-term exposure.

D) support the conclusion drawn from the first study.

E) disprove the conclusion drawn from the first study.

OA is D!! Can anyone explain this in simple logic to me. I marked C during the test. The explanation for D is pretty convoluted. Please let me know if you need to see the given explanation.

[v_prbk]

My analysis would be as follows

The CR states that there is a drastic change in behavior in the short term & tries to compare this period (73-75) with that for communities who have been viewing for decades.
In other words it can be inferred that from inception of TV in those communities to 73-75 there could have been a major change as per the first report, but as per the second report in some other communities in the period from 73 to 75 there is no change in the rate (the rate is constant).


First report is no TV to TV . Period- 73-75 -Growth rate of 160%

Second report TV has been for decades. Therefore aggression rate is constant for the years 74-75.This does deny the conclusions of the first report.

Therefore

A) Cause & Effect are reversed. Not relevant & not stated in the passage.
B) There is no place where it is mentioned that the reaction by social groups is different
C) The argument does not compare impact of long term vs short term rather the period is kept fixed. Only communities are the variable factor.
D) It supports the first conclusion by agreeing that TV does play a role in the aggressive behavior
E)Does not disprove the first conclusion

Hope this works

[tim]

i would certainly like to see the explanation for this one..

[krishnan.anju1987]

I think C is wrong due to the following reasons. C mentions that the long term effect is not any more severe than the short term effects. However, this need not be true. It could be that the long term effects might be slower. We do not know how the aggression grew in such populations over a period of time. During the next 2 years, i.e, from the second year till the fourth year aggression might continue growing.

I disagree with A,C and E. That leaves D.

But at the same time I am unable to completely agree with D. What is the OA?

[jlucero]

If there's an explanation, this isn't a GMAT Prep question, so you're posting in the wrong forum.