Stimulus: participants were offered three hypothetical treatments with identical effectiveness and likelihood of success. However, despite such similarity, some of them were preferred to others.
Possible inference: it seems like the effectiveness and the likelihood of success are not the only criteria by which treatments were judged. Otherwise, with the same level of positive outcome, all three would be approved to the same extent. It can be a case that participants attention was drawn to the information presented first. If positive information is presented first, then their emotions may favour from the most positive to the least positive. The mere mention of death may repel participants. Surely, there can be other reasons and factors that impacted their choice.
With this in mind let’s analyze answer choices:
A. Study participants consistently favored those treatments that offered certainty over those that created uncertainty.
The first thing that drew my attention is “consistently” at which nothing in the stimulus hints. Such “strong” words should be scrutinized first.
Next, all three treatments had similar descriptions presented in different ways. I don't think any of them was uncertain. Let’s say, even if participants thought that the information given in percentages was not as easily comprehensible as that given in numbers, still percentages present a certain information because the stimulus doesn’t say “about” or “approximately” or “perhaps” 75%. Rather, it directly says that 75% would be saved. So no uncertainty here. Moreover, participants still chose B over C, so uncertainty is non-issue.
B. Most or all study participants favored those treatments that saved the greatest number of lives.
An alluring trap: all three proposed treatments have the same success rate. All save 75% of 8000 people. So, this choice is not about the stimulus given above. Thus, out.
C. Some or all of the study participants were confused by the experimenters’ instructions.
Probably, the easiest choice to remove: nothing in the stimulus indicates that the result of the experiment was due to some sort of confusion. Sure, this can be a case, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a case. Participants may have chosen A > B > C on the basis of other factors, such as those mentioned before moving to the analysis of choices.
D. Participants would have strongly disfavored a hypothetical Treatment D that offered a 25% chance that all of the infected individuals would die but a 75% chance that none of the infected individuals would die.
The stimulus says “strongly preferred” that is not the same thing is “strongly disfavored”.
For example we may like chocolate, banana, and cake. We may like chocolate more than banana, and like banana more than cake. However, this doesn’t mean that we dislike cake. We surely like cake but not as much as we like chocolate and banana.
So, saying “strongly disfavor” is not the inference we can make”.
E. The effectiveness of a treatment and its likelihood of success were not the only factors that affected which treatments were favored by study participants.
As we have already presupposed above, participants may have judged treatments not only by a success rate. Otherwise, with the same level of positive outcome, all three would be approved to the same extent. It can be a case that participants attention was drawn to the information presented first. If positive information is presented first, then their emotions may favour from the most positive to the least positive. The mere mention of death may repel participants. Surely, there can be other reasons and factors that impacted their choice.
Hence
EPosted from my mobile device _________________