Studies have shown that children who watch

[Guest]

Studies have shown that children who watch a lot of television do not typically read above grade level. In the United States, more than three out of ten
children watch television at least 35 hours per week. In other western countries, less than one child out of ten watches that much television. In contrast, these
other children perform much better than American children on reading tests and more often read above grade level. A majority of these non American
children read above their school grade level; a smaller percentage of American children read above grade level. In order to read as well as children in
other western countries, American children will have to reduce the amount of time they spend watching television.

The passage depends upon which one of the following assumptions?
(A) American children are not as interested in reading well as children in other western countries.
(B) Other children are more structured in their studies than children in the United States.
(C) If a child wants to become a better reader, he or she will not watch as much television.
(D) If a child watches less television, his or her reading level will increase.
(E) The methods American teachers and parents use to teach reading are not significantly worse than the methods used by teachers and parents in other western countries.

OA: E.

But I solved it to be D. If we follow the negation technique then D is the most plausible answer. And E doesn't sound so convincing to me because of the word "not significantly worse" which can still means worse(to some extent). I think E would have made more sense if it would have been written as "The methods American teachers and parents use to teach reading are EQUAL to the methods used by teachers and parents in other western countries."

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

thanks.

[esledge]

Please cite the source (author) of this problem. We cannot reply until then. If no source is cited, we will have to delete the question just to be sure we are not violating someone else's copyright. Thanks!

[Guest]

source is NOVA GMAT book.

thanks.

[esledge]

I see what you are saying. Perhaps (D) doesn't cut it as the necessary assumption because it is the same as the conclusion itself (more TV watching decreases reading skills). Of course the negation test worked: by negating (D) you exactly negate the conclusion. The assumption should always be something unspoken, so choice (D) seems a little un-GMAT-like to me.

And E doesn't sound so convincing to me because of the word "not significantly worse" which can still means worse(to some extent). I think E would have made more sense if it would have been written as "The methods American teachers and parents use to teach reading are EQUAL to the methods used by teachers and parents in other western countries."

Whether the words are "not significantly worse than" or "equal to," we would perform the negation test this way:

What if the methods American teachers and parents use to teach reading ARE significantly worse than/different from the methods used by teachers and parents in other western countries?

Answer: In order to read as well as children in other western countries, American children need something else in addition to simply watching less TV! This weakens the conclusion, I suppose.