Psychologist: In a study, researchers gave 100 volunteers a psychological questionnaire designed to measure their self-esteem. The researchers then as...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Misc.

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

Psychologist: In a study, researchers gave 100 volunteers a psychological questionnaire designed to measure their self-esteem. The researchers then asked each volunteer to rate the strength of his or her own social skills. The volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem consistently rated themselves as having much better social skills than did the volunteers with moderate levels. This suggests that attaining an exceptionally high level of self-esteem greatly improves one's social skills.

The psychologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

It fails to adequately address the possibility that many of the volunteers may not have understood what the psychological questionnaire was designed to measure.

It takes for granted that the volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem had better social skills than did the other volunteers, even before the former volunteers had attained their high levels of self-esteem.

It overlooks the possibility that people with very high levels of self-esteem may tend to have a less accurate perception of the strength of their own social skills than do people with moderate levels of self-esteem.

It relies on evidence from a group of volunteers that is too small to provide any support for any inferences regarding people in general.

It overlooks the possibility that factors other than level of self-esteem may be of much greater importance in determining the strength of one's social skills.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
In a study, researchers gave 100 volunteers a psychological questionnaire designed to measure their self-esteem.	What it says: Researchers tested 100 people's self-esteem using a questionnaire What it does: Sets up the basic study design and participants What it is: Study methodology description Visualization: 100 volunteers taking self-esteem questionnaire
The researchers then asked each volunteer to rate the strength of his or her own social skills.	What it says: Same volunteers also rated their own social skills What it does: Adds a second measurement to the study design What it is: Additional study procedure Visualization: Same 100 volunteers now rating social skills (1-10 scale)
The volunteers with the highest levels of self-esteem consistently rated themselves as having much better social skills than did the volunteers with moderate levels.	What it says: High self-esteem people rated their social skills way better than moderate self-esteem people What it does: Presents the key finding that connects the two measurements What it is: Study results Visualization: High self-esteem group: social skills rating 8-9/10, Moderate self-esteem group: social skills rating 5-6/10
This suggests that attaining an exceptionally high level of self-esteem greatly improves one's social skills.	What it says: Having very high self-esteem actually makes your social skills much better What it does: Draws a cause-and-effect conclusion from the study findings What it is: Author's main conclusion

Argument Flow:

The psychologist starts by describing a study that measured both self-esteem and self-rated social skills in 100 volunteers. We then learn that people with high self-esteem rated their social skills much better than those with moderate self-esteem. From this correlation, the psychologist jumps to conclude that high self-esteem actually causes improved social skills.

Main Conclusion:

Having exceptionally high self-esteem greatly improves one's actual social skills.

Logical Structure:

This is a classic correlation-versus-causation flaw. The psychologist sees that high self-esteem people rate themselves as having better social skills, then assumes this means high self-esteem actually makes people more socially skilled. But we're only looking at self-ratings here - maybe people with high self-esteem just think they're better at everything, including social skills, regardless of their actual abilities. The argument treats self-perception as if it's objective reality.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Misc. - This is asking us to identify the biggest flaw or weakness in the psychologist's reasoning. We need to spot what makes this argument vulnerable to attack.

Precision of Claims

The conclusion claims a causal relationship - that 'attaining high self-esteem greatly improves social skills.' The evidence is based on self-ratings from the same individuals on both measures.

Strategy

Look for fundamental flaws in how the psychologist connects the evidence to the conclusion. Focus on issues with study design, logical reasoning errors, or alternative explanations that would make the conclusion questionable. The biggest red flag here is that people are rating their own social skills, and we're drawing causal conclusions from correlational data.

Answer Choices Explained

It fails to adequately address the possibility that many of the volunteers may not have understood what the psychological questionnaire was designed to measure.

This choice suggests the flaw is that volunteers didn't understand the self-esteem questionnaire. However, the argument doesn't hinge on whether people understood what self-esteem means - it's about the relationship between self-esteem and social skills. Even if some people misunderstood the questionnaire, this wouldn't address the core logical flaw in drawing causal conclusions from self-reported data.

This choice claims the argument assumes high self-esteem people always had better social skills. But that's not what the psychologist argues - the conclusion is specifically that 'attaining' high self-esteem improves social skills, which suggests a change over time rather than assuming they were always better. This misrepresents the argument's reasoning.

This choice identifies the key vulnerability: people with very high self-esteem might be less accurate in evaluating their own social skills compared to people with moderate self-esteem. This directly attacks the foundation of the argument, which treats self-ratings as if they reflect actual ability levels. High self-esteem people might simply overestimate their abilities across the board, making their higher self-ratings meaningless as evidence of actual social skill improvement.

It relies on evidence from a group of volunteers that is too small to provide any support for any inferences regarding people in general.

This choice argues that 100 volunteers is too small a sample size. However, sample size alone doesn't determine study validity - 100 people can provide meaningful data if the study design is sound. The real problem isn't the number of participants but how the psychologist interprets the relationship between the variables measured.

It overlooks the possibility that factors other than level of self-esteem may be of much greater importance in determining the strength of one's social skills.

This choice suggests the flaw is overlooking other factors that might determine social skills. While it's true that many factors affect social skills, this doesn't directly challenge the psychologist's reasoning. The argument could still be valid even if other factors matter - the core issue is whether we can trust self-reported social skill ratings as evidence of actual ability levels.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...