In an experiment, one thousand nine-year-old children were allowed to choose whether to participate in a program in which the...

GMAT Two Part Analysis : (TPA) Questions

Source: Mock

Two Part Analysis

Verbal - CR

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

In an experiment, one thousand nine-year-old children were allowed to choose whether to participate in a program in which the researchers taught them dance during the daily break from their lessons. Four hundred of the children chose to participate for at least one year. At the end of the year, researchers found that the children who had participated had significantly better balance, on average, than those who had not. The researchers hypothesized that dancing resulted in a sustained improvement in the children's sense of balance.

It would be most helpful in evaluating the researcher's hypothesis to know whether the researchers 1_ prior to having 2_ . Select Researchers for the phrase that fills the blank labeled 1 in the given statement, and select Prior to for the phrase that fills the blank labeled 2 in the given statement to create the most accurate statement on the basis of the information provided. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Researchers

Prior to

tested the children's ability to dance

designed a second experiment

divided the children into the two experimental groups

tested the children's sense of balance

taught dance to the children through the dance program

Solution

Phase 1: Owning the Dataset

Argument Analysis Table

Text from Passage	Analysis
"one thousand nine-year-old children were allowed to choose whether to participate"	What it says: Children self-selected into the program What it does: Establishes experimental design Key connections: Creates potential selection bias Visualization: 1000 total children → choice point
"Four hundred of the children chose to participate for at least one year"	What it says: 400 joined, 600 didn't What it does: Shows group sizes Key connections: Self-selection occurred Visualization: 400 dancers vs 600 non-dancers
"children who had participated had significantly better balance, on average"	What it says: Dancers showed superior balance What it does: Presents key finding Key connections: End-of-year measurement only Visualization: Balance scores: dancers > non-dancers
"researchers hypothesized that dancing resulted in a sustained improvement"	What it says: Dancing caused balance improvement What it does: States causal conclusion Key connections: Assumes causation from correlation Visualization: Dancing → Better balance

Argument Structure

Main conclusion: Dancing caused sustained balance improvement
Supporting evidence: Participants had better balance after one year
Key assumption: The groups were comparable at the start
Major weakness: Self-selection could mean pre-existing differences

Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking

Understanding What Each Part Asks

The question asks us to complete: "It would be most helpful in evaluating the researcher's hypothesis to know whether the researchers _1_ prior to having _2_."

Part 1: What action did the researchers take?
Part 2: What happened before this action?
Relationship: We need a temporal sequence that would help evaluate the causal hypothesis

Prethinking Based on Question Type

This is asking what information would help evaluate the hypothesis. The biggest threat to the hypothesis is that children who already had better balance might have self-selected into the dance program.

Specific Prethinking for Each Part

For Part 1: We'd want to know if researchers measured baseline balance
For Part 2: This should be something that happened after baseline but allows comparison
Key insight: We need to know about pre-existing differences between groups

Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation

Evaluating Each Choice

Let's examine each option:

"tested the children's ability to dance"
- Could work for Part 1
- Dancing ability might correlate with balance, but doesn't directly address the hypothesis
"designed a second experiment"
- Could work for Part 1
- But knowing about a second experiment doesn't help evaluate THIS experiment's hypothesis
"divided the children into the two experimental groups"
- Could work for Part 2
- But children self-selected; researchers didn't divide them
"tested the children's sense of balance"
- Perfect for Part 1
- Directly addresses the key variable and potential confound
"taught dance to the children through the dance program"
- Could work for Part 2
- Makes temporal sense: test baseline before teaching

The Correct Answers

The most logical completion is:
"It would be most helpful in evaluating the researcher's hypothesis to know whether the researchers tested the children's sense of balance prior to having taught dance to the children through the dance program."

For Part 1: "tested the children's sense of balance" - This directly addresses whether pre-existing differences could explain the results
For Part 2: "taught dance to the children through the dance program" - This creates the proper temporal sequence for a before-and-after comparison

Common Traps to Highlight

"divided the children into the two experimental groups" seems attractive because it relates to group formation, but:

The children divided themselves through self-selection
This doesn't help us understand if groups were initially comparable

"tested the children's ability to dance" might seem relevant, but:

Dance ability is indirect; we care about balance specifically
This wouldn't definitively address the causal question

The correct answer combination gives us exactly what we need: baseline balance measurements before the intervention, which would reveal whether the "improvement" was real or just a reflection of pre-existing differences.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...