Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
ChiranjeevSingh
Expert
Tutor
Expert reply
24 Jul 2022, 21:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
Understand the Passage
In an experiment, each volunteer was allowed to choose between an easy task and a hard task and was told that another volunteer would do the other task.In an experiment, each volunteer was presented with a choice between an easy task and a hard task. Each volunteer was also told that some other volunteer would do the other task. For example: if the volunteer chooses the easy task, some other volunteer would be given the hard task.
Each volunteer could also choose to have a computer assign the two tasks randomly.Each volunteer was also presented with a third option: to let the computer assign the two tasks randomly. In such a case, the volunteer being given the choice could be assigned any of the two tasks by the computer.
Most volunteers chose the easy task for themselves and under questioning later said they had acted fairly.
Out of the three choices presented, more than 50% of the volunteers chose the easy task for themselves (and thus, hard task for some other volunteer) and then later said that they had acted fairly.
But when the scenario was described to another group of volunteers, almost all said choosing the easy task would be unfair.This whole scenario was then described to another group of volunteers. Almost all of these volunteers said that choosing the easy task would be unfair. (So, according to these people, most of the first group of volunteers had not acted fairly. However, according to the first group of volunteers, they had acted fairly.)
This shows that most people apply weaker moral standards to themselves than to others.The above difference in opinion between the two groups of volunteers shows that most people apply weaker moral standards to themselves than to others.
How is this conclusion supported?
Majority of the people in the first group chose easy task and said that they had acted fairly. The second group of volunteers said that the guys in the first group had acted unfairly by choosing the easy task. Since the first group evaluated their own fairness, their standards of fairness were weak: they considered fair choosing easy task for themselves and thereby assigning hard tasks to others. However, the second group, which evaluated the fairness of the other group, had stronger moral standards: they didn’t consider fair what the first group did.
On this basis, the author makes the conclusion that most people apply weaker moral standards to themselves than to others.
Predict an Answer
Since the premises are based on the results of an experiment and the conclusion is general (about everyone), one easy assumption is that the results of the study are representative of the characteristics of the general population.
Option Analysis
(A) Correct. To evaluate this option, it is very important to have a lot of clarity on the conclusion and the reasoning. The conclusion said that people apply weaker moral standards to themselves than to others. It meant that people have two different set of standards: one for themselves and one for others. However, in the experiment, we never asked any person to evaluate himself and another person. The first group evaluated just themselves, and the second group evaluated just the first group. No person evaluated himself and the other at the same time.
On the other hand, the conclusion is about one person having two different moral (evaluation) standards.
Now, let’s look at the below two situations:
- 1. All the people in the first group who chose the easy task would call other people also fair in choosing the easy task.
2. All the people in the second group who called the people in the first group unfair for choosing the easy task would call themselves also unfair if they chose the easy task.
Either of these situations will shake the foundations of our argument by indicating that the two groups of people applied the same moral standards to themselves as they did to others. In such a case, what we can say from the experiment is that the two groups had different moral standards and not that people apply moral standards to themselves different from the ones they apply to others.
The negation of option A leads to the first situation above and thus breaks down the argument. Therefore, this option is an assumption.
(B) Incorrect. This option is incorrect for the following two reasons:
- 1. Whether the most moral choice is to assign the two tasks randomly or to assign the easy task to the other person is irrelevant to the argument. The argument will stand as is in either of these two situations.
2. The option talks about the absolute ‘most moral choice’, and not ‘most moral choice’ from the perspective of the two groups of volunteers in the experiment. The absolute moral standards don’t have any impact on the argument since the argument is about having different moral standards and not about whether people are moral or immoral in an absolute sense.
(C) Incorrect. This option talks about volunteers who were assigned the hard task by the computer. Even if no volunteer was assigned the hard task or even if no volunteer chose to have a computer assign the tasks randomly, the argument is not impacted at all. The argument rests on the opinion of the volunteers who chose easy tasks for themselves.
(D) Incorrect. This option compares the accuracy of the moral judgments of the first and the second groups of volunteers. However, the accuracy of moral judgments is not relevant to the argument. The argument is about whether people have different moral standards for themselves and for others and not about whether people have accurate or inaccurate moral judgments.
(E) Incorrect. This option says that at least some people in the first group felt that they had made the ‘only’ fair choice available to them. However, the feeling of making the ‘only’ fair choice is irrelevant to the argument. Even if nobody felt so i.e. let’s say everybody felt that they had made one of the fair choices available to them, the argument would still stand as is.
Hi - just couple of quick questions
q1) on C
Who is feeling that the assignment was unfair exactly?
Is it the same people who were assigned the hard task ?
I think so
I ask because if SC principles of parallelism are employed -- you could think actually the people who feel that the assignment was unfair ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE as the volunteer who were assigned to do the hard task.
q1) on C
Quote:
Who is feeling that the assignment was unfair exactly?
Is it the same people who were assigned the hard task ?
I think so
I ask because if SC principles of parallelism are employed -- you could think actually the people who feel that the assignment was unfair ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE as the volunteer who were assigned to do the hard task.
24 Sep 2022, 07:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
avigutman - q2) doesn't negating (C), weaken the argument?
Here is how
Now, from #3 : If all volunteers who were assigned to do the hard task, felt the assignment was FAIR
That breaks the argument
Reason :
Group 1 (people who choose the easy task) - say they were fair
Group 2 (people assigned the difficult task) -- this too is fair
Hence, now BOTH GROUPS are claiming "FAIRNESS"
Hence, you can't make the conclusion you made (i.e. the same person will do believe two different things, based on two different scenarios)
OR DO YOU THINK perhaps, #3 really doesn't BREAK THE ARGUMENT but rather just change the premises of the original argument all-together (BOTH GROUPS are claiming FAIRNESS, now) ?
Here is how
Quote:
Now, from #3 : If all volunteers who were assigned to do the hard task, felt the assignment was FAIR
That breaks the argument
Reason :
Group 1 (people who choose the easy task) - say they were fair
Group 2 (people assigned the difficult task) -- this too is fair
Hence, now BOTH GROUPS are claiming "FAIRNESS"
Hence, you can't make the conclusion you made (i.e. the same person will do believe two different things, based on two different scenarios)
OR DO YOU THINK perhaps, #3 really doesn't BREAK THE ARGUMENT but rather just change the premises of the original argument all-together (BOTH GROUPS are claiming FAIRNESS, now) ?
