Loading...
Psychologist: In an experiment, two groups of volunteers read a story in which a character learns that there is a \(50\%\) chance of rain later in the day. Group I was told that the character chose to carry an umbrella, whereas Group II was told that the character chose not to carry an umbrella. When asked if it would be appropriate for the story to end with the character getting caught in a rainstorm, volunteers in Group II were much more likely than volunteers in Group I to respond affirmatively. This suggests that people tend to believe that failure to take precautions makes adverse circumstances more likely to occur.
Which of the following is an assumption the psychologists argument requires?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In an experiment, two groups of volunteers read a story in which a character learns that there is a 50 percent chance of rain later in the day. |
|
| Group I was told that the character chose to carry an umbrella, whereas Group II was told that the character chose not to carry an umbrella. |
|
| When asked if it would be appropriate for the story to end with the character getting caught in a rainstorm, volunteers in Group II were much more likely than volunteers in Group I to respond affirmatively. |
|
| This suggests that people tend to believe that failure to take precautions makes adverse circumstances more likely to occur. |
|
We start with an experiment setup, then learn about the key difference between the two groups (umbrella vs. no umbrella), see the experimental results (different responses between groups), and finally get the psychologist's interpretation of what this means about human thinking.
People tend to believe that failure to take precautions makes adverse circumstances more likely to occur.
The psychologist uses experimental evidence to support a psychological claim. The logic is: if people think it's more 'appropriate' for someone without an umbrella to get caught in rain, this reveals they believe not taking precautions somehow increases the likelihood of bad outcomes happening.
Assumption - We need to find what the psychologist must believe to be true for their conclusion to hold. This is something that, if false, would make the conclusion fall apart.
The conclusion is about people's beliefs regarding causation - specifically that people think 'failure to take precautions makes adverse circumstances more likely to occur.' This is a claim about human psychology and causal reasoning.
For assumption questions, we need to identify ways the conclusion could be falsified while respecting the experimental facts. The psychologist concludes that people believe not taking precautions actually increases the likelihood of bad outcomes. But what if the experimental results could be explained by something else entirely? We need to find what the psychologist must assume to rule out alternative explanations for why Group II was more likely to say it's appropriate for the character to get caught in rain.
'The character's getting caught in a rainstorm is not the most sensible conclusion to the story.' This doesn't need to be assumed. The psychologist's argument works regardless of whether getting caught in rain is objectively the most sensible story ending. The argument is about what people think is appropriate based on precautionary behavior, not about what actually makes the most literary sense. The psychologist doesn't need to assume anything about objective story quality.
'Some of the volunteers in Group I based their responses solely on the forecast mentioned in the story.' This assumption isn't required. The psychologist's conclusion about people's beliefs regarding precautions and adverse outcomes doesn't depend on whether some Group I volunteers ignored the character's umbrella choice and focused only on weather probability. The argument works even if all volunteers considered both the forecast and the precautionary behavior.
'Some of the volunteers in Group II believed that the character in the story deserved to get caught in a rainstorm.' This assumption isn't necessary. The psychologist's conclusion is about people believing that lack of precautions makes bad outcomes more likely to occur, not about moral desert or punishment. The argument works whether volunteers thought in terms of likelihood, deservingness, or both - the key point is the differential response between groups.
'The responses of at least some of the volunteers in the experiment reflect those volunteers' beliefs about the real world.' This assumption is absolutely required. The psychologist concludes that people believe failure to take precautions makes adverse circumstances more likely to occur - this is a claim about real-world psychology. But the evidence comes from responses about a fictional story. For the conclusion to hold, the psychologist must assume that these story responses actually reflect participants' beliefs about how causation works in reality, not just literary preferences.
'Few of the volunteers in Group I believe that failure to take precautions affects whether adverse circumstances will occur.' This goes beyond what needs to be assumed and actually seems inconsistent with the experimental setup. The argument doesn't require that Group I volunteers reject causal connections between precautions and outcomes - it just explains why they responded differently when the character did take precautions.