A group of university researchers has found that gender bias continues

A group of university researchers has found that gender bias continues to affect social interactions. The experimenters had both men and women perform a perceptual task, involving objects that had distinctively masculine or feminine qualities. Meanwhile, to keep the experiment's purpose concealed, each participant's performance was rated by a single evaluator. When men proved competent at the task involving, for example, a tire-iron, their success was attributed more often to ability; when women did the same, however, their success was often attributed to luck. Conversely, when a feminine object was involved in the task, neither the women's nor the men's success was attributed to ability.

Breakdown: Finding - Gender bias continues to affect social interactions. Experiment - perceptual tasks - both masculine & feminine qualities - each participant - single evaluator. If men proved competent - it's due to ability - when women did the same - It's luck. Feminine tasks - not considered as an ability.

The above statements suggest that

(A) women who are good at perceptual tasks will have their abilities go under-appreciated.
Explanation: Correct

(B) a tire-iron cannot be perceived as having feminine qualities.
Explanation: Too extreme to consider.

(C) having only one person rate another can hide the purpose of an experiment.
Explanation: Cannot determine from he given passage

(D) successful women are often regarded as having more masculine qualities than are their less successful peers.
Explanation: Talks about competence which is irrelevant to the question

(E) more men performed the task competently than did women.
Explanation: Irrelevant

[quote="ArjunJag1328"]A group of university researchers has found that gender bias continues to affect social interactions. The experimenters had both men and women perform a perceptual task, involving objects that had distinctively masculine or feminine qualities. Meanwhile, to keep the experiment's purpose concealed, each participant's performance was rated by a single evaluator. When men proved competent at the task involving, for example, a tire-iron, their success was attributed more often to ability; when women did the same, however, their success was often attributed to luck. Conversely, when a feminine object was involved in the task, neither the women's nor the men's success was attributed to ability.

Breakdown: Finding - Gender bias continues to affect social interactions. Experiment - perceptual tasks - both masculine & feminine qualities - each participant - single evaluator. If men proved competent - it's due to ability - when women did the same - It's luck. Feminine tasks - not considered as an ability.

The above statements suggest that

(A) women who are good at perceptual tasks will have their abilities go under-appreciated.
Explanation: Correct

(B) a tire-iron cannot be perceived as having feminine qualities.
Explanation: Too extreme to consider.

(C) having only one person rate another can hide the purpose of an experiment.
Explanation: Cannot determine from he given passage

(D) successful women are often regarded as having more masculine qualities than are their less successful peers.
Explanation: Talks about competence which is irrelevant to the question

(E) more men performed the task competently than did women.
Explanation: Irrelevant

How to determine whether an answer option is too extreme to consider?

Posted from my mobile device

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja could you please explain why C is not correct?

To be honest, I don't know what they mean by
"Meanwhile, to keep the experiment's purpose concealed, each participant's performance was rated by a single evaluator."
in the argument.

Every participant's performance was rated by the same evaluator? Or each participant was rated by only one evaluator? I see some merit in the first case but not so much in the second (which actually seems to be the intent of the statement). How does one evaluator conceal the purpose? If one person could conceal the purpose, so could two or three.

From the argument, we can say that women's success in perceptual tasks was attributed to luck so their ability would be under-rated.

Thanks VeritasKarishma for the explanation, i again have problem b/w option A and B
A) Women who are good at perceptual task will have their abilities go under-appreciated.
However in the argument it is stated that when women did the same, however, their success was often attributed to luck. do this cannot be true always
B) a tier-iron cannot be perceived as having feminine qualities- I think this can be inferred because -
When men proved competent at the task involving, for example, a tire-iron, their success was attributed more often to ability; when women did the same, however, their success was often attributed to luck. Conversely, when a feminine object was involved in the task, neither the women's nor the men's success was attributed to ability.
Because the word conversely is used, it can be inferred that a tire-iron cannot be perceived as having feminine qualities

Please let me know your thoughts VeritasKarishma egmat aaron

Note what the question says: The above statements suggest that
It is not a "must be true" question.

(B) a tire-iron cannot be perceived as having feminine qualities.
The argument does not suggest that. It suggests that a tire-iron has masculine qualities but it does not suggest that it cannot have feminine qualities.

Anyway, don't waste too much time on this question.

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.