A study of native born residents in Newland found that two thirds of the children developed considerable nearsightedness after starting school, while their illiterate parents and grandparents, who had no opportunity for formal schooling, showed no signs of this disability. Which conclusion is most strongly supported by these statements?

Introduction / Context:
This statement and conclusion question uses a small research scenario to test logical reasoning. We are told that in Newland, two thirds of native born children developed significant nearsightedness after they started school, while their illiterate parents and grandparents with no formal schooling did not show this problem. We have to decide which conclusion is most strongly supported by these observations, keeping in mind the difference between strong support and absolute proof.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Most children in the study developed considerable nearsightedness after they began formal schooling.
• The children studied are native born residents of Newland.
• Their parents and grandparents are illiterate and did not have the chance to attend school.
• The older generations show no signs of nearsightedness.

Concept / Approach:
We must compare each proposed conclusion with the evidence. Statement A says that only people who attend school develop nearsightedness. This uses the extreme word only, which is risky because we are not told anything about people in other countries or about people who get nearsightedness for different reasons. Statement B claims that the children s nearsightedness is caused by visual stress from reading and classroom work. This is not proved with certainty, but the pattern of the data strongly suggests that something associated with schooling, most plausibly intense near work, is responsible. Therefore B is more strongly supported than A. Option C says both A and B are supported, which is too strong because A clearly goes beyond the data. Option D says none of the conclusions is supported, which is too pessimistic because the study does give strong evidence connecting schooling with the children s nearsightedness.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Note that children who start school develop nearsightedness, whereas their illiterate elders did not, even though all belong to the same population.Step 2: Observe that the main systematic difference described is access to formal schooling, which involves a lot of close vision tasks such as reading textbooks and writing.Step 3: Consider conclusion A. It claims that only people who attend school can develop nearsightedness. The study does not mention other groups, such as literate adults who learned in other ways or people in other countries.Step 4: Because A makes a universal claim that goes well beyond the limited study sample, it is not the best supported conclusion.Step 5: Consider conclusion B. It directly links children s nearsightedness to visual stress of reading and classroom work, which fits the timing and the contrast with older non schooled generations.Step 6: Given the correlation between starting school and onset of nearsightedness, B is the most sensible and strongly supported explanation among the options.

Verification / Alternative check:
Check whether an alternative cause such as heredity is consistent with the data. If nearsightedness were purely inherited, we would expect at least some parents or grandparents to show it, but they do not.The fact that the condition appears after children enter school suggests an environmental cause, most likely the visual tasks demanded there, which supports B.Because the study is limited to Newland, we cannot safely say that only schooled people anywhere can become nearsighted, which undermines conclusion A.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A overgeneralises from the sample and asserts a universal rule about all people, which the data do not justify.Option C is wrong because it includes A, which as argued is not strongly supported.Option D is wrong because the pattern of nearsightedness appearing only after schooling does give strong support to the idea that schooling related visual stress is a major cause.

Common Pitfalls:
Reasoning questions often include an option that uses absolute words like only, all, or never. These are usually too strong unless the passage explicitly uses such language.Learners sometimes think that because a study does not prove medical causation with experiments, no conclusion at all is supported. However, in test questions we select the conclusion that is best supported relative to the others.

Final Answer:
Thus the conclusion that best fits the given evidence is that the children s nearsightedness is caused by the visual stress of school work, so the correct answer is The nearsightedness in the children is most likely caused by the visual stress required by reading and other classroom work.