AbdurRakib wrote:
In an experiment, volunteers walked individually through a dark, abandoned theater. Half of the volunteers had been told that the theater was haunted and the other half that it was under renovation. The first half reported significantly more unusual experiences than the second did. The researchers concluded that reports of encounters with ghosts and other supernatural entities generally result from prior expectations of such experiences.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the researchers’ reasoning?
A. None of the volunteers in the second half believed that the unusual experiences they reported were supernatural.
B. All of the volunteers in the first half believed that the researchers’ statement that the theater was haunted was a lie.
C. Before being told about the theater, the volunteers within each group varied considerably in their prior beliefs about supernatural experiences.
D. Each unusual experience reported by the volunteers had a cause that did not involve the supernatural.
E. The researchers did not believe that the theater was haunted.
The argument in this question is worded in a way such that what is being said is not entirely clear, in that the researchers discuss “reports of encounters with ghosts and other supernatural entities,” while what the volunteers reported were simply “unusual experiences.” This wording could be taken as indicating that the “unusual experiences” that the volunteers had were somehow related to the supernatural. On the other hand, it could be that the difference between the wording used to describe what the volunteers experienced and the wording used in stating the researchers’ conclusion is a sign of a weakness in the argument. So, this difference is worth noting as we go to the answer choices to find one that weakens the argument.
A. None of the volunteers in the second half believed that the unusual experiences they reported were supernatural.
Since the volunteers in the second half are not the ones who were told that the theater was haunted, the fact that none of them believed that the unusual experiences they reported were supernatural is in line with the reasoning of the argument and, therefore, does not weaken the conclusion.
B. All of the volunteers in the first half believed that the researchers’ statement that the theater was haunted was a lie.
Since the researchers concluded that reports of supernatural experiences result from prior expectations of such experiences, the researchers must have assumed that their having told volunteers that the theater was haunted resulted in those volunteers’ expecting to have supernatural experiences.
This choice attacks that assumption, because, if the volunteers who were told that the theater was haunted believed that the researchers were lying, then the researchers’ saying that the theater was haunted would not have caused the volunteers to expect to have supernatural experiences.
What this choice says is in line with the wording of the passage, in that the passage says that the researchers came to a conclusion about supernatural experiences, while the volunteers reported experiences that were merely “unusual.” In other words, even the passage provided some indication that the researchers may have made an unwarranted assumption in arriving at their conclusion.
If the assumption that the volunteers in the first group expected to have supernatural experiences is incorrect, then the entire argument falls apart. Thus, this choice wrecks the argument.
C. Before being told about the theater, the volunteers within each group varied considerably in their prior beliefs about supernatural experiences.
This choice could be tempting, because it says something about the volunteers’ beliefs in the type of experiences that the argument is about. However, once you look closely at what this choice actually says, you see that all it conveys is that within each group the people varied in the degree to which they believed in supernatural experiences. In other words, this choices neither differentiates the two groups nor gives us any reason to believe that the volunteers in the first half did not expect to have supernatural experiences. So, this choice does not weaken the argument.
D. Each unusual experience reported by the volunteers had a cause that did not involve the supernatural.
This choice is a trap, because it could be perceived as undermining the conclusion though it does not actually do so.
Since the conclusion of the argument is about people reporting supernatural experiences, information indicating that those people did not in fact have supernatural experiences might seem to undermine the conclusion.
Notice, however, that the reasoning of the argument involves people’s “expectations” and “unusual experiences” that people “reported.” The experiences do not have to actually be supernatural experiences for people to report them. They could report the experiences, and they could even believe that the experiences were supernatural, even if the experiences were not supernatural. So, this choice does not affect the argument at all.
E. The researchers did not believe that the theater was haunted.
The argument is based on what the volunteers believed, not what the researchers believed. So, this choice does not affect the argument.
The correct answer is B.
_________________
See why Target Test Prep is the top rated GMAT course on GMAT Club.
Read Our Reviews