Errors in the performance of repetitive or "boring" tasks—often attributed to a momentary lapse in concentration—can be serious in such...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Strengthen

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

Errors in the performance of repetitive or "boring" tasks—often attributed to a momentary lapse in concentration—can be serious in such activities as flying a passenger aircraft. Is there any method that would provide warning of such lapses—for example by monitoring brain activity? Researchers scanned the brains of volunteers performing a repetitive task. When the tasks were being performed correctly, the volunteers' brains showed activity in cognitive-processing regions. However, these regions became less active several seconds before some errors were made, and another brain region, region X, became active. The researchers concluded that the monitoring of region X could provide warning of an impending error.

Which of the following, if true, most supports the researchers' conclusion?

The cognitive effort required in performing a repetitive task diminishes significantly with increases in the number of repetitions of the task performance.

Once a mistake was made and detected, brain activity in regions associated with cognitive effort sometimes increased.

Other research found that whenever significant activity occurs in region X, it is generally with repetitive tasks, soon before an error occurs.

The diminution of brain activity in cognitive processing regions and the increase of activity in region X began at least 5 seconds before the errors occurred.

Reduced activity in brain regions associated with cognitive effort was accompanied by increased activity in regions that become active during sleep.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Errors in the performance of repetitive or "boring" tasks—often attributed to a momentary lapse in concentration—can be serious in such activities as flying a passenger aircraft.	What it says: Mistakes during boring, repetitive tasks can have serious consequences, especially in critical activities like flying planes What it does: Sets up the problem - why we need to care about concentration lapses What it is: Author's problem statement
Is there any method that would provide warning of such lapses—for example by monitoring brain activity?	What it says: The author wonders if we can find a way to warn people before these concentration lapses happen, maybe by watching brain activity What it does: Poses the research question that builds directly from the problem just identified What it is: Author's research question
Researchers scanned the brains of volunteers performing a repetitive task.	What it says: Scientists monitored people's brains while they did boring, repetitive work What it does: Introduces the study method that could answer the research question What it is: Study methodology Visualization: 20 volunteers doing repetitive tasks → brain scanners monitoring their activity
When the tasks were being performed correctly, the volunteers' brains showed activity in cognitive-processing regions.	What it says: When people did the tasks right, their brains lit up in the thinking/processing areas What it does: Establishes the baseline brain pattern for correct performance What it is: Study finding Visualization: Correct performance → cognitive regions active
However, these regions became less active several seconds before some errors were made, and another brain region, region X, became active.	What it says: Before mistakes happened, the thinking areas got quieter and a different brain area (region X) started lighting up What it does: Reveals the key pattern - brain changes happen before errors, contrasting with the baseline What it is: Study finding Visualization: Cognitive regions ↓ activity + Region X ↑ activity → Error occurs 3-5 seconds later
The researchers concluded that the monitoring of region X could provide warning of an impending error.	What it says: The scientists think that watching region X could give us advance warning before mistakes happen What it does: States the main conclusion based on the brain pattern findings What it is: Researchers' conclusion

Argument Flow:

The argument starts with a real-world problem (serious errors from concentration lapses), poses a research question about early warning systems, then presents study evidence showing brain pattern changes before errors occur, leading to the conclusion that monitoring these changes could provide warnings.

Main Conclusion:

Monitoring brain region X could provide warning of impending errors in repetitive tasks.

Logical Structure:

The researchers found that region X becomes active several seconds before errors occur, while cognitive regions become less active. Since this pattern happens before the actual mistakes, they conclude that watching region X could serve as an early warning system for upcoming errors.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the researchers' conclusion more believable. The conclusion is that monitoring region X could provide warning of impending errors.

Precision of Claims

The key claim is about the reliability and usefulness of region X activity as a warning system. We need to focus on whether region X activation consistently and reliably predicts errors in real-world conditions.

Strategy

To strengthen this conclusion, we need evidence that makes region X monitoring more reliable, consistent, or practical as a warning system. We should look for information that shows:

Region X activation is a consistent predictor across different conditions
The warning window is practical for intervention, or
The monitoring system works reliably in real-world scenarios.

Answer Choices Explained

The cognitive effort required in performing a repetitive task diminishes significantly with increases in the number of repetitions of the task performance.

This explains why errors might happen (less cognitive effort over time) but doesn't strengthen the idea that monitoring region X would be useful as a warning system. We already know errors occur - the question is whether region X monitoring can reliably predict them.

Once a mistake was made and detected, brain activity in regions associated with cognitive effort sometimes increased.

This tells us what happens after errors are detected, but we need information that supports region X as a predictor before errors occur. This is about post-error brain activity, not pre-error warning systems.

Other research found that whenever significant activity occurs in region X, it is generally with repetitive tasks, soon before an error occurs.

This is perfect! Independent research confirming that region X activity reliably predicts errors in repetitive tasks makes the researchers' conclusion much stronger. It shows this isn't just a one-time finding but a consistent, replicable pattern that would make region X monitoring a reliable warning system.

The diminution of brain activity in cognitive processing regions and the increase of activity in region X began at least 5 seconds before the errors occurred.

While this provides more timing detail, it doesn't strengthen the conclusion about monitoring region X. We already know from the passage that these changes happen 'several seconds before' errors. More precise timing doesn't make region X monitoring more reliable.

Reduced activity in brain regions associated with cognitive effort was accompanied by increased activity in regions that become active during sleep.

This adds interesting information about what type of brain activity increases, but doesn't strengthen the case for using region X as a warning system. Knowing these regions are sleep-related doesn't make region X monitoring more reliable or practical.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...