Last visit was: 19 Jul 2024, 05:11 It is currently 19 Jul 2024, 05:11
Toolkit
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 94411
Own Kudos [?]: 642238 [5]
Given Kudos: 86282
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 94411
Own Kudos [?]: 642238 [1]
Given Kudos: 86282
General Discussion
Director
Joined: 02 Jul 2017
Posts: 644
Own Kudos [?]: 840 [1]
Given Kudos: 333
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Intern
Joined: 29 Jun 2020
Posts: 46
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [1]
Given Kudos: 71
Location: India
GPA: 3.29
WE:Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Hi,

My analysis is as follows:

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.

(A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities
The question specifically talks about infants "touching" the object. Hence, vocal disabilities should not come into picture here.

(B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it
The experiment (as described) is limited to the infants touching the object, and does not talk about what the infant does after touching it.

(C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals
If the infants react to audio stimuli is immaterial to the discussion.

(D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone
The experiment is about objects, and not people.

(E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually
CORRECT. If we think about it, if the infant is curious, but is studying the object visually, then it would not touch it.

All suggestions are appreciated. Thank you.
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1347
Own Kudos [?]: 857 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj [#permalink]
A still cant strengthen or weaken the argument
B it will have no effect on the conclusion
C: If Yes : it weakens the conclusion
If No then it strengthens the conclusion
E: it doesn’t effect conclusion. If yes it strengthens but if No it is irrelevant.

Hence C is the suitable answer
Manager
Joined: 04 May 2020
Posts: 185
Own Kudos [?]: 551 [1]
Given Kudos: 68
Location: India
GMAT 1: 610 Q47 V27
WE:Programming (Computer Software)
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Premise: The reactions of each infant were recorded, and the results of the experiment showed that almost 90% of the infants did not choose to touch it in any way.

Conclusion: 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- Vocal disabilities are out of scope. Incorrect

(B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it
- Irrelevant to the context. Incorrect

(C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals - 'Audio signals' are out of scope. Incorrect

(D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone - 'people' and objects are two different things here. Irrelevant

(E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually - Correct.

IMO E
Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2021
Posts: 107
Own Kudos [?]: 222 [1]
Given Kudos: 4
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Prompt: Assumption
Premise: 90% not touch shiny objects
Conclusion: Infants of that age are not curious about foreign objects
LJ: gap between touching and being curious

A. vocal disabilities - do not bridge the gap
B. remaining 10%, in mouth - do not bridge the gap
C. whether to react with audio - KEEP
D. facial features - do not bridge the gap
E. study objects visually - KEEP

C does not bridge the gap because if it is false, then we still could not answer the question. E bridges the gap because if say yes, the author argument is strengthened, and if say no, the author's argument is weakened.
I choose E.
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jun 2020
Posts: 442
Own Kudos [?]: 546 [1]
Given Kudos: 222
Location: India
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Bunuel 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?

Type: Evaluate.

Argument: Some experiments on infants to know whether they are curious about objects that are foreign to them. Details of the experiment are mentioned.

Conclusion: Infants that age (10-12 months) are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them.

Pre-Thinking: Relation between touching the object and curiosity
Whether they know which object is foreign.

(A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities
Irrelvent, OFS as vocal disabilities is not part of this argument.

(B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it
Same, Irrelevant as it won't impact conclusion.

(C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals
Same OFS, Irrelevant as it won't impact conclusion.

(D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone
ISWAT, Instead of ppl if they used a more generalized word I would have picked this choice.

(E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually
Yeah, Inline with pre-thinking.

We can apply the variance test. If they can study then a conclusion holds good, If they can't distinguish familiar/non-familiar objects then the conclusion is shattered.

IMO E

But took nearly 2.30 min, I think it below average time
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2019
Posts: 428
Own Kudos [?]: 440 [1]
Given Kudos: 117
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Bunuel 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

(A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities
It is a visual exercise. Knowing about their vocal disabilities won't help!

(B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it
Irrelevant, as we are not concerned what they do after touching it!

(C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals
Again, it's a visual exercise, knowing about the audio signals won't help!

(D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone
It doesn't help us answer the question, why are children not curious about the foreign object!

(E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually
Yes, if it's a general notion then we can easily say that they are not curious to finding foreign objects at that age.

IMO, (E)!­
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1347
Own Kudos [?]: 857 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj [#permalink]
mSKR wrote:
A still cant strengthen or weaken the argument
B it will have no effect on the conclusion
C: If Yes : it weakens the conclusion
If No then it strengthens the conclusion
E: it doesn’t effect conclusion. If yes it strengthens but if No it is irrelevant.

Hence C is the suitable answer

Hi IanStewart
You almost post to these CR questions . Could you please give your comments on C vs E.

As per argument, infants can recognize object but don't touch it. So we are not sure this touching is necessary to make a conclusion that they are curious.

My reasoning of choosing C:
How can I find if they are curious or not?
What if i use audio sounds.
Using audio, if we can determine they are curious then we can strenghthen or weaken the conclusion.
Why i gave preference to audio because what do you expect from an infant of 10-12 months. He even hardly cant walk or roll too much . What if the object is far and even he is curious, he could not move. But with audio signal you can get rid of all these assumptions.

Why I didn't like E:
1st of all, there is no scientifc rule that 10-12 months can or can not observe. It is based on experiments. We already have results of expereiments that 90% didn't touch. So why we are going back on tendency? I would not have mind if instead of tendency, some scientific proof would have mentioned.
2ndly: the conclusion says about curiousity . Why do I need to narrow myself of the curisouty visually. what if they are curious but not visually then conclusion could still hold true. I focus on conclusion to strenghten or weaken it , not to strengthen or weaken the premise.

GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 4128
Own Kudos [?]: 9452 [2]
Given Kudos: 91
Q51  V47
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj [#permalink]
2
Kudos
mSKR wrote:

Hi IanStewart

I think you've changed the conclusion of the argument before considering the answer choices. The argument's conclusion is not "infants are not curious". The conclusion is "infants are not curious about objects". Answer C might be relevant if the conclusion was about curiosity in general, but if we learned about how infants respond to audio signals, that would only tell us whether infants are curious about sounds. We'd have no information about how curious infants are about objects.

The argument says "infants don't touch objects, so they aren't curious about objects". But maybe infants just don't like to touch things -- they could still be curious. We'd be better able to evaluate the argument if we investigated infants' interest in objects in a different way. That's why E is relevant here (and no other answer choice really has anything to do with the conclusion, so you could reach E just by eliminating other options).

But reading this question, I also wonder what value questions like this add to a test taker's prep. As soon as I read in the stem "although not failing to recognize..." I wanted to move on to some other problem that was intelligibly written. There's no reason to use a double-negative like "not failing" in this context, and no real GMAT question ever would.
Intern
Joined: 11 Oct 2020
Posts: 23
Own Kudos [?]: 31 [0]
Given Kudos: 42
Location: India
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj [#permalink]
IMO (E)

A,B and C are irrelevant
D is not the addition information needed
Re: In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6984 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts