In an experiment, capuchin monkeys watched Person A refuse Person B's

I understand that D is correct. However, could anyone explain why C is not correct? If the capuchin monkeys do not understand that Person A was refusing Person B's request, they can't identify that Person A is unhelpful. Thus there might be other reasons that capuchin monkeys avoid A.

GMATNinja mikemcgarry KarishmaB please help!

Hello I would also know to like why D is not correct. Thank you experts.

 
 
­
­Hi, if choice D had questioned whether capuchin monkeys understood that person A was being unhelpful to person B in the experiment, then this would have been a contender choice and what you are saying would have been correct. However, since the official option choice questions whether "the researchers" considered this "possibility", these choices are not the same.

Let's try the variance analysis on this:

Yes: the researchers did consider this possibility (since the word "might" is used in the answer choice, this behavior by capuchin monkeys is a possibility) - does it change the conclusion or increase our belief in the conclusion in any way? I don't think so because it is not substantive proof that capuchin monkeys really DID NOT understand the behavior - since the researchers might be wrong in their analysis or consideration etc.

Usage of the phrases such as capuchin monkeys "might" understand X and "researchers considered" Y raised an alarm in my head while reading this answer choice to really understand it before accepting or rejecting this choice.

Since the choice fails in the variance test because of not having a direct impact on the conclusion stated, it is incorrect.

Hope this helps­

The question asks us to evaluate the support provided in the argument. This means that our task is to look at each option and ask, "if I knew whether this thing occurred, would that give me insight into the strength of the support in the argument?"

Starting with (D):
It would be incredibly helpful to know whether this would happen. If the monkeys DID accept more food from Person B even without the unhelpful interaction, it really blows a hole in the argument. Maybe the monkeys' decisions had nothing to do with Person A being unhelpful -- maybe they just didn't like that person for whatever reason. 

Compare that to (C):
Let's say that we find out that this DID happen -- the researchers DID consider that the monkeys might not understand the interaction. Well... what did the researchers conclude? Did the monkeys understand, or not? We would need this additional information in order for the issue raised in (C) to actually be helpful. So, just knowing the info in (C) itself isn't enough to help us evaluate the strength of the support in the argument.

That's why (C) is out, and (D) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps! ­

Why A is not as strong as D:
While testing the opposite behavior (Person A being helpful) could provide additional insights, it does not directly address the core question of whether the monkeys' preference in the original experiment was specifically due to their perception of unhelpfulness. The conclusion is about avoiding unhelpful individuals, so A introduces a new variable (helpfulness) rather than isolating the original one (unhelpfulness).

A might show whether monkeys prefer helpful individuals, but it wouldn't clarify if the observed behavior in the original experiment was solely due to unhelpfulness or influenced by other factors, such as an inherent preference for Person B.

Why D is stronger:
D isolates the variable of the interaction. If the monkeys still prefer Person B in a scenario where no refusal occurred, it suggests the preference was unrelated to perceived helpfulness or unhelpfulness. This directly challenges or supports the conclusion.

While A introduces a complementary line of inquiry, it doesn’t directly evaluate the researchers’ conclusion. D is better because it tests the monkeys’ behavior under controlled conditions to confirm whether the avoidance of Person A is indeed due to perceived unhelpfulness.


While C raises a potentially valid concern about the monkeys’ comprehension of the situation, it does not directly test the validity of the researchers’ conclusion. D is more appropriate because it experimentally isolates the helpfulness/unhelpfulness variable and provides actionable evidence to confirm or refute the claim that capuchin monkeys avoid unhelpful individuals.

MartyMurray

simple TDLR is just that D presents another variable that would explain the monkey preference.