GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 23 Oct 2019, 08:31

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1220
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2015, 05:06
2
6
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

64% (01:50) correct 36% (02:09) wrong based on 310 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny object was placed in front of infants aged 10 to 12 months. The reactions of each infant were recorded, and the results of the experiment showed that almost 90% of the infants, although not failing to recognize the presence of the object, did not choose to touch it in any way. It can be deduced that infants that age are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?

A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities
B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it
C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals
D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone
E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually

_________________
Retired Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 511
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2015, 11:51
Harley1980 wrote:
In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny object was placed in front of infants aged 10 to 12 months. The reactions of each infant were recorded, and the results of the experiment showed that almost 90% of the infants, although not failing to recognize the presence of the object, did not choose to touch it in any way. It can be deduced that infants that age are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?

A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities
B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it
C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals
D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone
E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually

EVALUATE QUESTION

Conclusion: Infants (10 - 12 months) are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them
Scope: almost 90% of 10-12 months infants, touch, object placed in front of children

(A), (B), (C), (D) are all wrong because of OUT OF SCOPE reasons => only E is correct answer.

Finding SCOPE will help GMAT taker eliminate all the wrong answer easily
_________________
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1097
Location: India
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2015, 13:21
In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny object was placed in front of infants aged 10 to 12 months.
The reactions of each infant were recorded, and the results of the experiment showed that almost 90% of the infants recognized the presence of the object but did not choose to touch it in any way.
It can be deduced that infants that age are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them.

Assumption: they should be able to distinguish foreign and known objects.

evaluate the argument?

A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities
(Vocal capability is of no concern here))

B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it
(What they do after touching it is not important)

C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals
(same as A audio is OFS here)

D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone

E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually

both D and E give reasons for evaluating the ability of the toddler to distinguish objects or humans they see and D mentions people familiar to them i.e., not foreign(or unknown). But Even if they have a tendency to study objects visually it is not mentioned whether they would like to touch it or not)

Harley1980 can you explain?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1220
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2015, 14:13
1
Mechmeera wrote:
In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny object was placed in front of infants aged 10 to 12 months.
The reactions of each infant were recorded, and the results of the experiment showed that almost 90% of the infants recognized the presence of the object but did not choose to touch it in any way.
It can be deduced that infants that age are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them.

Assumption: they should be able to distinguish foreign and known objects.

evaluate the argument?

A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities
(Vocal capability is of no concern here))

B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it
(What they do after touching it is not important)

C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals
(same as A audio is OFS here)

D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone

E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually

both D and E give reasons for evaluating the ability of the toddler to distinguish objects or humans they see and D mentions people familiar to them i.e., not foreign(or unknown). But Even if they have a tendency to study objects visually it is not mentioned whether they would like to touch it or not)

Harley1980 can you explain?

Hello Mechmeera

For solving such questions we should find link between premise and conclusion

Conclusion: "infants that age are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them" [because] "infants recognized the presence of the object but did not choose to touch it"
So link is that argument says that touching is a sign of interest.

But as we know there are another ways of show your interest besides touching (listening, watching or thinking)

E says about one of such ways: about visual studying of objects and this visual interaction can be a sign of curiousity.
If infants does not show tendency to visual studying then this fact strength the argument
If infants does show tendency to visual studying then this fact weaken the argument

Evaluate question is like weaken and stregthen types of question: answer shouldn't completely destroy or justify conclusion but just create possibility of weakening or strengthening
_________________
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1097
Location: India
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2015, 14:21
Harley1980 wrote:
Mechmeera wrote:
In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny object was placed in front of infants aged 10 to 12 months.
The reactions of each infant were recorded, and the results of the experiment showed that almost 90% of the infants recognized the presence of the object but did not choose to touch it in any way.
It can be deduced that infants that age are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them.

Assumption: they should be able to distinguish foreign and known objects.

evaluate the argument?

A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities
(Vocal capability is of no concern here))

B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it
(What they do after touching it is not important)

C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals
(same as A audio is OFS here)

D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone

E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually

both D and E give reasons for evaluating the ability of the toddler to distinguish objects or humans they see and D mentions people familiar to them i.e., not foreign(or unknown). But Even if they have a tendency to study objects visually it is not mentioned whether they would like to touch it or not)

Harley1980 can you explain?

Hello Mechmeera

For solving such questions we should find link between premise and conclusion

Conclusion: "infants that age are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them" [because] "infants recognized the presence of the object but did not choose to touch it"
So link is that argument says that touching is a sign of interest.

But as we know there are another ways of show your interest besides touching (listening, watching or thinking)

E says about one of such ways: about visual studying of objects and this visual interaction can be a sign of curiousity.
If infants does not show tendency to visual studying then this fact strength the argument
If infants does show tendency to visual studying then this fact weaken the argument

Evaluate question is like weaken and stregthen types of question: answer shouldn't completely destroy or justify conclusion but just create possibility of weakening or strengthening

D and E are almost similar.
But since we are concerned of object in this argument we eliminated D only because it spoke of humans rather than objects(Shiny one in the argument)
Right
Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1220
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2015, 02:21
Mechmeera wrote:
D and E are almost similar.
But since we are concerned of object in this argument we eliminated D only because it spoke of humans rather than objects(Shiny one in the argument)
Right

Hello Mechmeera
I don't think that human faces is the main reason why we should eliminate D
If answer had been: "Whether infants that age show a tendency to study human faces of interest visually" then it would have been correct answer too.

The main idea of this question is to show that infants can be curious not only by touching but by vision too.
D doesn't say that infants can show curiosity by vision. It only says that infants can distinguish people but this fact is not about cutiosity. That's why D is wrong.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 27 Dec 2018
Posts: 32
GMAT 1: 550 Q47 V19
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2019, 10:11
What is wrong with C? Why C is out of scope?
Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2018
Posts: 57
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2019, 11:11
Isn't C more accurate over E. If infants are curious to audio signals it weakens conclusion. If infants are not curious to audio signal it strengthens conclusion

Posted from my mobile device
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny   [#permalink] 28 Feb 2019, 11:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by