Psychologists spent three months training volunteers in a meditation technique that centers on minimizing distractions, while other volunteers receive...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
Psychologists spent three months training volunteers in a meditation technique that centers on minimizing distractions, while other volunteers received no training. Then all the volunteers were asked to pick out numbers from a stream of distracting letters that appeared on a video screen. The volunteers who had undergone meditation training were much better than the others at detecting the numbers. The psychologists concluded that practicing the concentration required by the meditation technique improves overall focus and attention.
In order to assess the strength of the psychologist's argument, it would be most helpful to know which of the following?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Psychologists spent three months training volunteers in a meditation technique that centers on minimizing distractions, while other volunteers received no training. |
|
| Then all the volunteers were asked to pick out numbers from a stream of distracting letters that appeared on a video screen. |
|
| The volunteers who had undergone meditation training were much better than the others at detecting the numbers. |
|
| The psychologists concluded that practicing the concentration required by the meditation technique improves overall focus and attention. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by describing a controlled experiment where one group gets meditation training and another doesn't. Then it shows the meditation group performed better on a focus test. Finally, it jumps from this specific result to a general conclusion about meditation improving all focus and attention.
Main Conclusion:
Practicing the concentration required by meditation technique improves overall focus and attention.
Logical Structure:
The evidence (meditation group did better on one specific task) is used to support a much broader claim (meditation improves all focus). This is a classic case where we need to question whether one test result can really prove such a general statement about meditation's effects.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Evaluate - We need to think of key assumptions the psychologists are making, then create scenarios that would either strengthen or weaken their conclusion when we know more information
Precision of Claims
The conclusion claims that meditation practice improves 'overall focus and attention' - this is a broad, sweeping claim based on one specific test (finding numbers among letters)
Strategy
The psychologists are jumping from 'meditation group did better on one specific task' to 'meditation improves all focus and attention.' We need to think about what could make this leap more or less believable. Key assumptions: the groups were similar to start with, the test actually measures general focus, and meditation was the only difference between groups.
Knowing the specific training methods might be interesting, but it doesn't help us evaluate whether the conclusion is valid. Whether they used breathing techniques, mantras, or other methods, we still wouldn't know if the performance improvement was actually due to meditation or other factors like placebo effect. This doesn't address the core logical gap in the argument.
Learning what percentage of numbers the trained volunteers detected gives us more detail about the results, but we already know they performed 'much better.' Getting the exact percentage doesn't help us assess whether meditation was truly the cause of this improvement or whether other factors were involved. This adds descriptive detail but doesn't help evaluate the argument's strength.
Understanding why only one meditation technique was tested doesn't help us evaluate the current conclusion. Whether they tested one technique or multiple techniques, we'd still face the same question about whether the observed improvement was actually caused by meditation or by other factors like expectations.
The time between training and testing could potentially matter for how well the meditation effects lasted, but it doesn't address the fundamental issue of whether meditation was actually the cause of better performance. Even if we knew the timing, we still wouldn't know if other factors influenced the results.
This directly targets a crucial assumption in the argument. If volunteers who believed meditation would help them performed better simply because of that belief (placebo effect), then their improved performance wasn't actually due to meditation's inherent benefits. This would significantly weaken the conclusion. Conversely, if we learned that belief had no influence on performance, it would strengthen the argument that meditation itself caused the improvement. This information would be extremely helpful in assessing whether the psychologists' conclusion is valid.