In an experiment, volunteers received twenty noninjurious electric shocks. For half the volunteers, all twenty shocks were strong, but for...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
In an experiment, volunteers received twenty noninjurious electric shocks. For half the volunteers, all twenty shocks were strong, but for the other half, the shocks were weak, except for three random strong shocks. The volunteers were told in advance which group they were in. The researchers found that the volunteers who consistently received strong shocks showed much milder physical signs of anxiety than the other volunteers did.
Which of the following would, if true, most help to explain the results of the experiment?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In an experiment, volunteers received twenty noninjurious electric shocks. |
|
| For half the volunteers, all twenty shocks were strong, but for the other half, the shocks were weak, except for three random strong shocks. |
|
| The volunteers were told in advance which group they were in. |
|
| The researchers found that the volunteers who consistently received strong shocks showed much milder physical signs of anxiety than the other volunteers did. |
|
Argument Flow:
We start with an experimental setup involving two groups getting different shock patterns. The key twist is that participants knew their group assignment beforehand. The surprising result shows that consistent strong shocks led to less anxiety than unpredictable mixed shocks.
Main Conclusion:
There is no explicit conclusion in this passage - it's purely descriptive of experimental results that need explanation.
Logical Structure:
This is a descriptive passage presenting experimental findings rather than making an argument. The structure moves from experimental setup → group differences → participant knowledge → surprising results. The question asks us to explain these counterintuitive findings.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Paradox - We need to explain a surprising or counterintuitive result. Here, it's surprising that people who got consistently strong shocks showed LESS anxiety than those who got mostly weak shocks with just 3 random strong ones.
Precision of Claims
The key claims are about physical signs of anxiety (quality) and the specific shock patterns each group received (frequency and intensity). Group 1 had 20 strong shocks, Group 2 had 17 weak + 3 random strong shocks, and Group 1 showed milder anxiety signs.
Strategy
For paradox questions, we need to find explanations that make the surprising result make sense. The counterintuitive finding is that consistent strong shocks caused less anxiety than mixed shocks. We should look for psychological or physiological mechanisms that would explain why predictable intense stimuli might be less anxiety-provoking than unpredictable mixed stimuli.
This choice directly addresses the core paradox by highlighting the role of predictability. Group 1 knew they would get 20 strong shocks - completely predictable. Group 2 knew they'd get mostly weak shocks but couldn't predict when the 3 strong ones would come. According to this choice, the unpredictability of when unpleasant experiences occur causes more anxiety. This explains why Group 2 (unpredictable strong shocks) showed more anxiety than Group 1 (predictable strong shocks). This perfectly resolves the paradox.
This choice talks about anticipating strong vs. mild shocks, but it doesn't help explain our results. If anything, this would suggest Group 1 (all strong shocks) should have shown more anxiety than Group 2 (mostly mild shocks), which is the opposite of what actually happened. This choice doesn't resolve the paradox - it actually makes it more confusing.
This choice tells us that Group 1 volunteers reported feeling anxious, but the experiment measured physical signs of anxiety, not self-reports. More importantly, this doesn't explain why Group 1 showed milder physical signs compared to Group 2. This choice doesn't explain the comparative result we need to understand.
This choice describes Group 2's reaction pattern (stronger signs after strong shocks vs. mild shocks), but it doesn't explain why Group 2 overall showed stronger anxiety signs than Group 1. We already expect people to react more strongly to strong shocks than mild ones. This doesn't address the between-group comparison that creates our paradox.
This choice suggests that volunteers in general feel less anxiety about shocks, but this would apply equally to both groups since they're all volunteers. This doesn't explain the difference between the two groups, which is what we need to resolve the paradox. This choice is irrelevant to the group comparison.