rocko911
prashantpareek
Hey There
Here is another question to test your CR skills. See if you can crack it. Will post the answer later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an experiment conducted by two psychologists from the University of Nalanda, participants were given mathematical tasks after seeding them with concepts related to money or time through articles written on these subjects. They were told to reward themselves with 100 pounds for each task they completed successfully and to donate 50 pounds for each one they couldn’t. It was found that those who read money-related articles cheated more when evaluating themselves compared to those who read time-related articles. Therefore, reading money-related articles led to the higher instance of cheating in the former group.
Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given above?
A. One of the psychologists had not completed her PhD when the experiment was conducted.
B. In the absence of a penalty for unsuccessful attempts, the group which read time-related articles would have earned more money than the other group.
C. The standard of the mathematical tasks was much higher than the education level of the participants.
D. Most of the participants of the group who read money-related articles were from a financially weak background.
E. Participants could read only one type of articles, as per their choice.
Regards
Prashant
People were from weak background so they stole more money?
I think taking this as a reason is not at all suitable, I think GMAT wont make us think in this way...
Rather I will go for C , As standard was much high so it made them to cheat to get more success in the experiment
I am impressed with D but I really dont think GMAT will ever make us think that people who are from weak background will more likely steal the money or do the cheating
Hi! I do understand the contention - but lets look at C --> it says that the level of questions was high. And the stem asks us - what is 'true' so that it could seriously weaken the conclusion.
In an experiment conducted by two psychologists from the University of Nalanda,
participants were given mathematical tasks after seeding them with concepts related to money or time through articles written on these subjects. They were told to reward themselves with 100 pounds for each task they completed successfully and to donate 50 pounds for each one they couldn’t.
It was found that those who read money-related articles cheated more when evaluating themselves compared to those who read time-related articles. Therefore, reading money-related articles led to the higher instance of cheating in the former group.
Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given above?
premise: there was an expt, where two groups were there. One group read time article and one read money- post this they did some math tasks and basis that rewarded themselves or donated. conclusion: it was seen that money reading group rewarded themselves more and author concludes that because they read articles on money, they cheated a little more.task: we need to weaken the variable (money reading) on reward - and the options should help us do thatA. One of the psychologists had not completed her PhD when the experiment was conducted. -
Cannot weaken - PhD has no impact on resultsB. In the absence of a penalty for unsuccessful attempts, the group which read time-related articles would have earned more money than the other group.
This is extraneous - we are not talking about penalties. Also it uses one of the groups as a distractorC. The standard of the mathematical tasks was much higher than the education level of the participants.
Possible - but then it would have an effect on both the groups not one of them (time group and money group). In addition the stem asks us to weaken conclusion of those reading money articles cheating more. In short,
we need to find another reason than reading money articlesD. Most of the participants of the group who read money-related articles were from a financially weak background.
Not the most comfortable or moral,
but in case they were somewhat deprived, there may have been a reason to quote more in reward than others- its not definite; but its a weakener. We aren't anyway drawing a judgement - out of all of them; this one; despite its uncomfortable claim; comes close as a variable that could explain the 'cheating'. E. Participants could read only one type of articles, as per their choice.
Again re stating what is aboveMy guess is that GMAT CR weakener questions ask us to look for variables or themes that could weaken the conclusion - so it maybe strange or amoral,
but we need to solve it either way. Also, if this question had more of 'weakener' option - say [color=#662d91]'money article group had received incorrect instructions halfway through the experiment; it CAN imply that may have rewarded themselves more; and hence weaken the conclusion again. This kind of option would be stronger than 'financially weak' backgrounds; but we have to make the best of what we have. Hope this useful!!

[/color]