Loading...
In an experiment that lasted several weeks, volunteers were given either an assortment of snacks or only corn chips between meals. Beforehand, most volunteers predicted that they would be more satisfied with an assortment of snacks rather than just one kind of snack. But afterward, those who received only corn chips reported greater satisfaction. The researchers concluded from this that people tend to mistakenly believe that they prefer variety to monotony in their diets.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the researchers' reasoning?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In an experiment that lasted several weeks, volunteers were given either an assortment of snacks or only corn chips between meals. |
|
| Beforehand, most volunteers predicted that they would be more satisfied with an assortment of snacks rather than just one kind of snack. |
|
| But afterward, those who received only corn chips reported greater satisfaction. |
|
| The researchers concluded from this that people tend to mistakenly believe that they prefer variety to monotony in their diets. |
|
The argument starts with experimental setup, then shows how predictions didn't match reality, and uses this contradiction to support a general claim about human psychology
People tend to mistakenly believe that they prefer variety to monotony in their diets
The researchers use one experiment's results (corn chip group was more satisfied despite predictions favoring variety) as evidence that people generally misjudge their own preferences about dietary variety versus monotony
Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the researchers' conclusion more believable
The researchers claim people are generally wrong about preferring variety over monotony in their diets, based on one experiment with snacks
To strengthen this conclusion, we need information that either (1) rules out alternative explanations for why corn chips group was more satisfied, (2) shows this pattern extends beyond just this one experiment, or (3) provides additional evidence that people's predictions about variety are systematically wrong
This would actually weaken the argument rather than strengthen it. If corn chips were people's favorite snack beforehand, then the greater satisfaction of the corn chip group could be explained by the fact that they got their preferred food, not because monotony is better than variety. This provides an alternative explanation that undermines the researchers' conclusion about people mistakenly believing they prefer variety.
This is irrelevant to strengthening the researchers' conclusion about dietary preferences. The researchers are specifically claiming that people are wrong about preferring variety in their diets. Information about variety in other experiences doesn't help support their specific conclusion about food and diet preferences.
While this eliminates some potential bias in the experimental setup, it doesn't directly strengthen the conclusion that people mistakenly believe they prefer variety over monotony. The volunteers still predicted variety would be better and were wrong, regardless of whether they knew what the alternative would be.
This actually weakens the argument. If the corn chip group had variety in their main meals, then their overall eating experience wasn't truly monotonous. This suggests that some variety (in main meals) combined with monotony (in snacks) might be the optimal combination, which doesn't support the conclusion that people are wrong about preferring variety.
This significantly strengthens the argument. If people generally found corn chips less appetizing than other snacks in a separate test, yet the corn chip group was still more satisfied during the experiment, this rules out the alternative explanation that corn chips were simply more delicious. It shows that even with a less preferred food, monotony led to greater satisfaction, which strongly supports the researchers' conclusion that people mistakenly believe they prefer variety over monotony.