In a learning experiment a researcher ran rats through a maze. Some of

Question Type: Weaken

Conclusion: Kinesthesia is sufficient for maze learning.

(A) The small differences in proficiency found by the researcher did not appear to fall into a systematic pattern by group. - Incorrect. Irrelevant.

(B) The possibility that the interaction of kinesthesia with at least one other sense is required for maze-learning cannot be ruled out on the basis of the data above. - Correct. x + Kinesthesia is required for maze learning. So, Kinesthesia alone is not sufficient for maze learning.

(C) It can be determined from the data that rats who are deprived of one of their sources of sensory stimulation become more reliant on kinesthesia than they had been, but the data do not indicate how such a transference takes place. - Incorrect. We are checking whether Kinesthesia is sufficient, not whether rats were more reliant on Kinesthesia.

(D) It can be determined from the data that rats can learn to run mazes by depending on kinesthesia alone, but the possibility that rats respond to nonkinesthetic stimulation is not ruled out. - Incorrect. Opposite.

(E) It can be determined from the data that maze-learning in rats depends on at least two sources of sensory stimulation, one of which is kinesthesia, but which of the remaining sources must also be employed is not determinable. - Out of focus. This option is more concerned on finding the 2nd source responsible for sensory stimulation.

Answer: B

E. While B and E both mention that two senses are required, B is doubtful whereas E conclusively says, based on the data.

Kinesthesia hasn't been shown to be irrelevant to maze-learning.

-->

Kinesthesia is sufficient for maze learning.

What's the problem? Something not being irrelevant doesn't make it sufficient. If you have a buddy who can never wake up on time, what is sufficient for his waking up? 1. His alarm clock goes off. 2. He isn't hungover or exhausted from playing video games all night. 3. He doesn't just ignore the alarm clock. We'd say his alarm clock actually going off is not irrelevant to his getting up--it may be necessary--but that doesn't make it sufficient. All sorts of other things have to happen for him to wake up.

The same thing is true here. (B) captures the difference between kinesthesia being possibly necessary versus it's being sufficient. Even if the mice need it for maze-learning, maybe they need something else, too. The experiment doesn't give us enough to know what else is required.

(A) is irrelevant.
(C) is also irrelevant. We aren't concerned with how it takes place.
(D) is wrong because it's actually not determined by the study that rats can maze-learn by kinesthesia alone. And the rest of (D) is irrelevant.
(E) is tricky. It takes the lack of knowledge that kinesthesia is sufficient and turns it into knowledge that kinesthesia is insufficient. We don't know whether kinesthesia is sufficient or not. (E) tells us that we do.
_________________

Can someone explain the difference between B and E?

Tx, Srinjoy.

E goes against the premise that kinesthesia, the sensation of bodily movement, is sufficient for maze-learning. the data doesn't suggest that additional sources are required it tells us that we can't rule out the possibility that kinesthesia combibed with such sources yields the results obtained.

Choice B is the correct answer as it shows that kinesthesia is not sufficient for maze learning. Maze learning requires some other sense with kinesthesia.

E It can be determined from the data that maze-learning in rats depends on at least two sources of sensory stimulation, one of which is kinesthesia, but which of the remaining sources must also be employed is not determinable.
E is very tricky statement. This statement mentions that maze learning depends on at least two senses. This takes it for granted that there are more than two sensory inputs. Thus it changes the scope of the argument.

Since when is outside information a factor when deciding why to disregard weakening answer choices? Talking about E)
I dont think your reasoning is right to eliminate it based on this argumentation.
_________________

In a learning experiment a researcher ran rats through a maze. Some of the rats were blind, others deaf, others lacked a sense of smell, and others had no sensory deficiencies; yet all the rats learned the task in much the same amount of time. Of the senses other than sight, hearing, and smell, only kinesthesia had not previously been shown to be irrelevant to maze-learning. The researcher concluded on the basis of these facts that kinesthesia, the sensation of bodily movement, is sufficient for maze-learning.

The researcher’s reasoning is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?

Hi GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo, gmat1393, nightblade354, VeritasKarishma

In the above question, the main confusion is between two options, B and E.
Could you please check if my reasoning to eliminate option E correct?

In a learning experiment a researcher ran rats through a maze. Some of the rats were blind, others deaf, others lacked a sense of smell, and others had no sensory deficiencies; yet all the rats learned the task in much the same amount of time. Of the senses other than sight, hearing, and smell, only kinesthesia had not previously been shown to be irrelevant to maze-learning. The researcher concluded on the basis of these facts that kinesthesia, the sensation of bodily movement, is sufficient for maze-learning.

The researcher’s reasoning is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?

(E) It can be determined from the data that maze-learning in rats depends on at least two sources of sensory stimulation, one of which is kinesthesia, but which of the remaining sources must also be employed is not determinable. -->From the above stem, it could not be determined that it depends on two sources, all that is mentioned is kinesthesia is sufficient.

Rats with a sensory deficiency (of sight, hearing or smell) and others with no deficiency learned in same time.
Sight, hearing, smell and kinesthesia are relevant to maze learning.

Conclusion: Kinesthesia is sufficient for maze learning.

Since rats with some deficiency learnt just like rats with no deficiency, the argument says that sight, hearing and smell are not necessary for maze learning, that kinesthesia is sufficient.

We need to weaken this.

(A) The small differences in proficiency found by the researcher did not appear to fall into a systematic pattern by group.

There was no pattern for diff in proficiency. So we cannot say that any one deficiency cause decrease in proficiency.

(B) The possibility that the interaction of kinesthesia with at least one other sense is required for maze-learning cannot be ruled out on the basis of the data above.

Correct. We cannot rule out the possibility that kinesthesia and at least one other sense (or two) are required for maze learning. Then kinesthesia may not be sufficient. The experiment does not include rats that have just kinesthesia and no other relevant sense. It is possible that at least one other sense is needed along with kinesthesia.

(C) It can be determined from the data that rats who are deprived of one of their sources of sensory stimulation become more reliant on kinesthesia than they had been, but the data do not indicate how such a transference takes place.

This doesn't weaken our argument that kinesthesia is sufficient for maze learning. It could explain why kinesthesia is sufficient.

(D) It can be determined from the data that rats can learn to run mazes by depending on kinesthesia alone, but the possibility that rats respond to nonkinesthetic stimulation is not ruled out.

We don't care about nonkinesthetic stimulation. Our argument is this - kinesthesia is sufficient for maze learning. The argument is not concerned with nonkinesthetic stimulation.

(E) It can be determined from the data that maze-learning in rats depends on at least two sources of sensory stimulation, one of which is kinesthesia, but which of the remaining sources must also be employed is not determinable.

The data does not say that at least two sources of stimulation are needed. It also doesn't say that there is a definitive second source. The data shows that rats with one sense missing perform as we'll as rats with no sense missing. How many of the other senses are used, it doesn't say. The data shows that sight, smell and hearing are not independently necessary. It is possible that kinesthesia is sufficient. It is possible that kinesthesia and one other sense are needed. It is also possible that kinesthesia and two other senses are needed.
The argument concludes that kinesthesia alone is sufficient. But it doesn't consider that kinesthesia along with one (or two) other sense might be performing well together. And that is why option (B) is correct.

Answer (B)

In my opinion :-

Conclusion :- The researcher concluded on the basis of these facts that kinesthesia, the sensation of bodily movement, is sufficient for maze-learning.

We need a weakener :- (Let the battle begin)

(A) The small differences in proficiency found by the researcher did not appear to fall into a systematic pattern by group.

--> Let us assume even if it did fall in a pattern. The small differences in which rat is better has some hidden data which may weaken or strengthen the conclusion that kinesthesia is sufficient for maze solving. But we cannot conclude it is a weakener for sure. Let's drop it. Wrong.

(B) The possibility that the interaction of kinesthesia with at least one other sense is required for maze-learning cannot be ruled out on the basis of the data above.

--> Maybe kinesthesia needs one more sensory . For example, in blind kinesthesia + hearing is helpful. For deaf , kinesthesia + sight is helpful. This definitely is a weakener as now kinesthesia alone is not sufficient.

(C) It can be determined from the data that rats who are deprived of one of their sources of sensory stimulation become more reliant on kinesthesia than they had been, but the data do not indicate how such a transference takes place.

--> This actually is a strengthener.

(D) It can be determined from the data that rats can learn to run mazes by depending on kinesthesia alone, but the possibility that rats respond to nonkinesthetic stimulation is not ruled out.

--> nonkinesthetic not in discussion. Wrong.

(E) It can be determined from the data that maze-learning in rats depends on at least two sources of sensory stimulation, one of which is kinesthesia, but which of the remaining sources must also be employed is not determinable.

---> Maybe maze - learning depends on at least two sensory simulation. But, there is still a possibility that kinesthesia is sufficient.

Thanks

As per my understanding, we can introduce new information. The new information can be some details of the experiment which are not mentioned in the argument.

Can we not consider below part as new information? Please explain

The data does not say that at least two sources of stimulation are needed. It also doesn't say that there is a definitive second source. The data shows that rats with one sense missing perform as we'll as rats with no sense missing. How many of the other senses are used, it doesn't say.

Regards,
Arup Sarkar

hello Karishma,
I read your post but still have a question.
As you said "The argument concludes that kinesthesia alone is sufficient. But it doesn't consider that kinesthesia along with one (or two) other sense might be performing well together", if kinesthesia+another sense (let's say hearing) should be together for maze-learning---->that means the hearing is a necessary factor for learning, then how can the deaf rats perform as well as other rats who are not deaf? I don't think these two groups (deaf VS not deaf) can use the same amount time to learn maze

From Powerscore:

This stimulus describes an experiment that uses rats with and without different deficiencies in sight, hearing, and smell. The rats with the deficiencies lacked one of these senses. The experiment found that the rats with the deficiencies completed the experiment in the same amount of time as those without. It then describes another sense—kinesthesia—which may have an effect on the experiment. The argument concludes that given the evidence, kinesthesia is by itself sufficient to allow the rats with the deficiencies to complete the experiments. The flaw here is that the experiment is set up improperly. The rats with the deficiencies did not complete the experiment using kinesthesia alone; rather, they also had the aid of senses other than those in which they were deficient. Therefore, it is possible that these rats did not rely on kinesthesia alone in completing the experiment.

Answer choice (A) The small differences in proficiency are irrelevant to the argument. The fact that the rats completed the experiment in much the same time simply shows that the rats with deficiencies are somehow as proficient in completing the experiment as those without.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The evidence does not exclude the possibility that the rats also used their non-deficient senses in addition to kinesthesia to complete the experiment. The argument, however, jumps to the conclusion that kinesthesia alone is sufficient to complete the experiment.

Answer choice (C) In order for the argument to be valid, it need not show how the rats relied on kinesthesia.

Answer choice (D) There are two problems with this answer. First, as explained above, it is not clear from the evidence presented that the rats can complete the experiment using kinesthesia alone. Second, the possibility that rats respond to non-kinesthetic stimulation need not be ruled out, as the argument does not address non-kinesthetic stimulation.

Answer choice (E) The first part of this answer choice is true, as our pre-phrase shows. However, regarding the second part, the argument need not determine which remaining source must also be employed.

The trap of Option E is as follows:

It takes for granted or brings in new information that cannot be directly determined/logically concluded from the data already given in the argument.

Does that mean that we cannot bring in new information? No, certainly, we can, but for that question stem has to clearly mention it ,eg: which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

If the question had clearly stated ''if true'' than I could have taken that new information for granted and marked the Option E.

Hope the logic is clear, so next time, whenever we see the strengthen or weaken question , check if the question stem mentions ''if true'' ,then we can take any new information for granted , not otherwise.

This is my understanding, I would like to have the expert opinion on this matter.

Regards
Vighnesh

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________