In an experiment, one group of volunteers was shown words associated with money, such as "salary," whereas another group was...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Mock

Critical Reasoning

Assumption

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

In an experiment, one group of volunteers was shown words associated with money, such as "salary," whereas another group was shown neutral words. Afterward, individuals in both groups solved puzzles unrelated to money. Those who had been shown words associated with money were much less likely to request or offer help with the puzzles. The researchers concluded from this evidence that preoccupation with money makes people less cooperative.

Which of the following is an assumption the researchers' reasoning requires?

At least some of the volunteers were preoccupied with money before being shown the words.

Being shown the neutral words did not cause the volunteers to become preoccupied with subjects other than money.

Most of the volunteers who were shown neutral words requested or offered help with the puzzles.

Most of the volunteers in both groups succeeded in solving the puzzles, either with or without help.

The volunteers who were shown neutral words were, on average, less preoccupied with money while solving the puzzles than the other volunteers were.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
In an experiment, one group of volunteers was shown words associated with money, such as "salary," whereas another group was shown neutral words.	What it says: Study set up two groups - one saw money-related words, the other saw neutral words What it does: Sets up the experimental design with a clear comparison between two groups What it is: Study methodology Visualization: Group A (30 people) → money words like "salary", "cash" vs Group B (30 people) → neutral words like "table", "book"
Afterward, individuals in both groups solved puzzles unrelated to money.	What it says: Both groups then worked on puzzles that had nothing to do with money What it does: Introduces the test activity that measures behavior after the word exposure What it is: Study procedure
Those who had been shown words associated with money were much less likely to request or offer help with the puzzles.	What it says: The money-word group was way less helpful than the neutral-word group during puzzles What it does: Reveals the key finding that connects word exposure to cooperative behavior What it is: Study results Visualization: Money group → 20% offered help vs Neutral group → 70% offered help
The researchers concluded from this evidence that preoccupation with money makes people less cooperative.	What it says: Scientists decided that thinking about money reduces how much people cooperate What it does: Transforms the specific experimental results into a broad general principle What it is: Author's conclusion

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by describing an experiment with two groups, then shows what happened during the test, reveals the results, and finally draws a broad conclusion from those results.

Main Conclusion:

Preoccupation with money makes people less cooperative.

Logical Structure:

The researchers use experimental evidence (money-word group was less helpful) to support a general claim about money's effect on cooperation. The logic assumes that seeing money words creates the same mental state as being preoccupied with money, and that helping behavior in puzzles represents overall cooperation.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Assumption - We need to find what the researchers must believe to be true for their conclusion to be valid. This means finding gaps in their reasoning that they're assuming are filled.

Precision of Claims

The conclusion makes a precise causal claim: 'preoccupation with money makes people less cooperative.' The study showed that exposure to money words led to less helpful behavior during puzzles.

Strategy

For assumption questions, we look for ways the conclusion could fall apart while keeping all the facts from the experiment intact. The researchers jump from 'saw money words and were less helpful' to 'preoccupation with money reduces cooperation.' We need to find what they're assuming about this connection.

Answer Choices Explained

At least some of the volunteers were preoccupied with money before being shown the words.

This isn't required for the researchers' reasoning. Their conclusion is about what happens when people become preoccupied with money, regardless of their initial state. Even if no one was initially preoccupied with money, the experiment could still show that exposure to money words creates preoccupation that reduces cooperation.

Being shown the neutral words did not cause the volunteers to become preoccupied with subjects other than money.

This doesn't need to be true for the conclusion to work. Even if neutral words made people think about other topics, the researchers' conclusion is specifically about money's effect on cooperation. As long as the neutral group wasn't more preoccupied with money than the money-word group, the reasoning holds.

Most of the volunteers who were shown neutral words requested or offered help with the puzzles.

The researchers don't need this to be true. Their conclusion is based on the relative difference between groups, not absolute numbers. Even if only 20% of the neutral group helped compared to 5% of the money group, that would still support their conclusion.

Most of the volunteers in both groups succeeded in solving the puzzles, either with or without help.

This is irrelevant to the researchers' reasoning. Their conclusion focuses on cooperative behavior (offering/requesting help), not puzzle-solving success rates. Whether people solved the puzzles doesn't affect the validity of the cooperation-related conclusion.

The volunteers who were shown neutral words were, on average, less preoccupied with money while solving the puzzles than the other volunteers were.

This is absolutely required for the researchers' reasoning to work. If both groups were equally preoccupied with money during the puzzle phase, then we couldn't attribute the difference in cooperative behavior to money preoccupation. The researchers must assume that their experimental manipulation (money words vs. neutral words) actually created different levels of money preoccupation during the test phase. Without this assumption, their causal conclusion that 'preoccupation with money makes people less cooperative' would be unfounded.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...