A behavioral scientist hypothesized that the constant barrage of....

A is the only option within scope..

Intense level of noise stopped them from socialising.Not that the noise caused anti social behavior (side effects).

The answer is B since it proves that even after the speakers were removed they did not begin socializing again, so there must be some third cause for the guinea pigs to stop socializing in the 7 days the experiment was run

Why are we looking for an answer within scope? This is a weaken argument, so we should ideally allow the use of "new information" in the 5 statements

Can you explain why do you think that B is the correct answer?

Can you explain how A is weakening the argument?

If A is not the answer please dont screw me up.Now my 2 cents...

CAMANISHPARMAR
A is weakening the argument by giving an alternate explanation.

@ShrutiShivanani1
The information has to be outside the scope but we have to stay within the scope of the argument.

Posted from my mobile device

Why not c can be the answer. The premise says they stopped socialising after seven days. So it's probable that they are immobile and thus they do not socialise.
In a way, to put it in language of critical reasoning, the cause was something else(immobility) for the effect.(social behaviour)

Posted from my mobile device

I think this is a cause and effect kind of argument. The scientist thinks that being exposed to noise causes one to be anti-social. In GMAT terms, it means that noise is the only cause of being anti-social. So if there is no noise, they are not anti-social. But in B, the other scientist found that In the experiment, even after removing the noise, the Guinea pigs were anti-social, so this cause and effect paradigm is weakened. Is this reasoning correct ?

Posted from my mobile device

I see a small flaw in this. Please correct me if i am wrong.

The causation is: constant sound causes anti social behaviour.

In the other experiment it is true they are not socializing again but it is still true that the sound might have caused the antisocial behaviour. The causation is the first line of the argument that the scientist wants to prove.

I have a query here too.

I see your reasoning that it is not constant barrage but an increasing intensity that has made them anti social.

But if you re read it writes, after 7th day they became antisocial and not before. So it's quite a possibility that they became antisocial while the sound was constant.

Please correct me if I am wrong.


C gives the best alternate reason as they are immobile now.
Regards,
Rishav

Option C says ON the 7th day. So in that case they would have become anti social ON yhe 7th day, why AFTER the 7th day?

I get your point. Lets wait for the OA.

Thats a subtle remark.

Maybe the observations by scientists came from next day. The immobility could have started from 7th

Though it's just a rogue assumption.

Posted from my mobile device

I guess it's A. The scientist stated that it's the constant barrage of noise that makes people or guinea pigs antisocial. But here the experiment concluded that it was the 7th day when the sound intensity was too much that they became anti-social. So, during the first 6 days, constant noise didnt affect them much, weakening his conclusion. It was the intensity on the 7th day that made them anti social.

Answer B would strengthen the argument, as the noise constant lead to previously normal guinea pigs to become antisocial irreversibly.

Answer C, doesn't really attack the argument. During the experiment, the scientist was just changing the position of the speaker not it's size. So be it first day or second day, the speaker took the same space.

answer D and E do not affect the argument in any way.

Hope i made it a bit clearer

A is not the correct answer. You may like to try once again.

B is not the correct answer. You may like to try once again.

A is not the correct answer. You may like to try once again.

I would want to go with C. Below is my reasoning for the same. Feel free to point errors. Thanks!

The question asks us to weaken the scientist's hypothesis which states that the constant noise (lets call it X) leads to antisocial behavior (AB; lets call it Y). In order to weaken we need to introduce evidence that may show that it is either Y that leads to X, X and Y are just a coincidence or there is a third factor Z that leads to Y.

Option A - Strengthens the hypothesis by suggesting that it is the noise that led to the AB
Option B - Strengthens the hypothesis by indicating that the guinea pigs stopped socializing after the noise was introduced and the effect continued even after the noise was removed
Option C - This weakens the hypothesis by indicating that there was a third factor i.e. space constraint which led to the AB and not noise
Option D - Strengthens the hypothesis. If we combine this with the last line in the prompt then what we see is that the guinea pigs were socializing normally before and after the experiment, but stopped socializing when the white noise was introduced, hence strengthening the claim that it was indeed the noise that led to AB
Option E - If my interpretation is correct then this statement tells us that \(SPL = 1/distance^2\) which means that the intensity of the sound decreases if the distance of the cage from the loudspeaker increases. Applying to our prompt where the speaker was brought closer to the cage would have increased the SPL. Combine this with the evidence provided that the socializing stopped on \(7th\) day indicates that it was indeed the noise that was the culprit.