Psychologists conducted an experiment in which half of the volunteers were asked to describe an unethical action they had performed,...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Psychologists conducted an experiment in which half of the volunteers were asked to describe an unethical action they had performed, while the other half were asked to describe an ethical action they had performed. Some of the volunteers, chosen at random from each of the two groups, were encouraged to wash their hands afterward. Among those who described unethical actions, those who washed their hands were significantly less likely to volunteer for another, similar experiment than those who did not wash their hands. The researchers concluded that some of the subjects failed to volunteer again in part because of their having described an unethical action.
Which of the following would, if true, most help to support the researchers' conclusion?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Psychologists conducted an experiment in which half of the volunteers were asked to describe an unethical action they had performed, while the other half were asked to describe an ethical action they had performed. |
|
| Some of the volunteers, chosen at random from each of the two groups, were encouraged to wash their hands afterward. |
|
| Among those who described unethical actions, those who washed their hands were significantly less likely to volunteer for another, similar experiment than those who did not wash their hands. |
|
| The researchers concluded that some of the subjects failed to volunteer again in part because of their having described an unethical action. |
|
Argument Flow:
We start with an experimental setup comparing two groups (ethical vs unethical action describers), then add hand-washing as another variable. The key result shows that within the unethical group, hand-washers were less likely to volunteer again. From this pattern, researchers conclude that describing unethical actions caused the reduced volunteering.
Main Conclusion:
Describing an unethical action caused some subjects to be less willing to volunteer for another experiment.
Logical Structure:
The argument uses experimental evidence to support a causal claim. The researchers observe that hand-washing affected volunteering behavior specifically in the unethical action group, and they interpret this as evidence that describing unethical actions influences future participation decisions.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Strengthen - We need to find information that would make the researchers' conclusion more believable. The conclusion is that some subjects failed to volunteer again partly because they described an unethical action.
Precision of Claims
The key claim is about causation - that describing unethical actions caused some people to not volunteer again. We need to be precise about what specifically about describing unethical actions led to this behavior, especially in relation to the hand-washing variable.
Strategy
To strengthen this conclusion, we need information that supports the idea that describing unethical actions specifically caused the lower volunteering rates. Since the key finding is that hand-washers in the unethical group were less likely to volunteer again, we should look for evidence that either:
- Shows the ethical group behaved differently under similar conditions
- Explains why hand-washing would amplify the effect of describing unethical actions
- Rules out alternative explanations for the behavior difference
This choice tells us that among ethical action describers, hand-washers were also less likely to volunteer again than non-hand-washers. If this were true, it would actually weaken the researchers' conclusion because it suggests that hand-washing itself, rather than the combination of describing unethical actions and hand-washing, is what reduces willingness to volunteer. This doesn't support the idea that describing unethical actions specifically caused the behavior.
This choice provides exactly what we need to strengthen the conclusion. It shows that people who described ethical actions were more likely to volunteer again than those who described unethical actions. This directly supports the researchers' claim that describing unethical actions caused reduced willingness to participate again. It establishes a clear difference between the two groups based on the type of action described, which is the core of the researchers' conclusion.
This choice tells us that most people who were encouraged to wash their hands actually did so. While this confirms that the hand-washing variable worked as intended in the experiment, it doesn't tell us anything about why describing unethical actions would cause reduced volunteering. This is just confirming the experimental procedure worked but doesn't strengthen the causal conclusion.
This choice tells us that the volunteers weren't unusually prone to hand-washing compared to the general population. This might rule out some alternative explanations about the volunteers being unusual, but it doesn't strengthen the specific conclusion that describing unethical actions caused the reduced volunteering behavior.
This choice confirms that the experimental design was balanced, with equal numbers from both groups encouraged to wash hands. While this shows good experimental design, it doesn't provide any evidence that supports the causal claim about unethical action descriptions leading to reduced volunteering.