In an experiment, volunteers walked individually through a dark, aband

P1 :- two groups
P2 :- first group has been told theater is haunted
P2 :- second been told that it was under renovation
P3 :- First half reported significantly more unusual

conclusion :- it is because of prior expectations.
Basically author is assuming they actually believe the statement
B is just opposite as it says they don't believe the author

The important part of the conclusion is reports of ... generally result from prior expectations of such experiences.

A. None of the volunteers in the second half believed that the unusual experiences they reported were supernatural.
Irrelevant, this does not support conclusion as the second half were not expecting the theater to be haunted
B. All of the volunteers in the first half believed that the researchers’ statement that the theater was haunted was a lie.
Possible candidate, assumption is that first group would assume that it was actually haunted
C. Before being told about the theater, the volunteers within each group varied considerably in their prior beliefs about supernatural experiences.
Plausible but not relevant to conclusion
D. Each unusual experience reported by the volunteers had a cause that did not involve the supernatural.
Irrelevant
E. The researchers did not believe that the theater was haunted.
Irrelevant

This leaves only B as the answer

Hi,

I cannot understand, why option B is the answer. The argument has cause and effect relation in the conclusion, which says that the prior expectation of supernatural activity made them experience unusual activity. Hence,

Prior expectation-> unusual experience.
Hence if we prove that something else lead to unusual experience, we can weaken the argument. Option C, says each participant had prior belief of supernatural experience. Hence it could be prior belief of supernatural experience that could cause such experience not the expectation of supernatural activity.

Please, help why my reasoning is flawed and why B is OA.

Regards

Hi, How can we rule out option D? My thinking was that if there was indeed some experience that was not supernatural then it undermines the conclusion that prior expectations of such experiences was the cause?
Thanks

It is not stated that only the volunteers of the second group understood that there was some natural reason for the experience. Therefore the reason for more unusual experiences for the first group cannot be attributed to the fact that the second group, but not the first group, understood that actual reasons were not supernatural. Thus the reason for more unusual experience from the first group can still be attributed to the fact that the first group expected something unusual. Hence option D does not weaken the conclusion.

(Note: As long as it is not given that the volunteers were aware of the natural reason for the experience, it is not important whether the experiences were actually because of supernatural reason or natural reason.)

In an experiment, volunteers walked individually through a dark, abandoned theater. Half of the volunteers had been told that the theater was haunted and the other half that it was under renovation. The first half reported significantly more unusual experiences than the second did. The researchers concluded that reports of encounters with ghosts and other supernatural entities generally result from prior expectations of such experiences.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the researchers’ reasoning?

A. None of the volunteers in the second half believed that the unusual experiences they reported were supernatural. -The second group weren't told that the place was haunted. Out of scope.
B. All of the volunteers in the first half believed that the researchers’ statement that the theater was haunted was a lie. -Correct. If all the members of the first group thought that what they were told is a lie, then they didn't have any expectation.
C. Before being told about the theater, the volunteers within each group varied considerably in their prior beliefs about supernatural experiences. -This is a strengthener.
D. Each unusual experience reported by the volunteers had a cause that did not involve the supernatural. -We are not worried about the cause.
E. The researchers did not believe that the theater was haunted. -The argument is about the volunteers.

Hello experts,

Can you explain why option D is incorrect?

The point of the passage is not what actually caused the unusual events, even if there have been any, but whether the inference drawn from those events, as felt by the representative of the experiments, can be attributed to the prior experience of such knowledge.

Cheers !!

The argument in this question is worded in a way such that what is being said is not entirely clear, in that the researchers discuss “reports of encounters with ghosts and other supernatural entities,” while what the volunteers reported were simply “unusual experiences.” This wording could be taken as indicating that the “unusual experiences” that the volunteers had were somehow related to the supernatural. On the other hand, it could be that the difference between the wording used to describe what the volunteers experienced and the wording used in stating the researchers’ conclusion is a sign of a weakness in the argument. So, this difference is worth noting as we go to the answer choices to find one that weakens the argument.

A. None of the volunteers in the second half believed that the unusual experiences they reported were supernatural.

Since the volunteers in the second half are not the ones who were told that the theater was haunted, the fact that none of them believed that the unusual experiences they reported were supernatural is in line with the reasoning of the argument and, therefore, does not weaken the conclusion.

B. All of the volunteers in the first half believed that the researchers’ statement that the theater was haunted was a lie.

Since the researchers concluded that reports of supernatural experiences result from prior expectations of such experiences, the researchers must have assumed that their having told volunteers that the theater was haunted resulted in those volunteers’ expecting to have supernatural experiences.

This choice attacks that assumption, because, if the volunteers who were told that the theater was haunted believed that the researchers were lying, then the researchers’ saying that the theater was haunted would not have caused the volunteers to expect to have supernatural experiences.

What this choice says is in line with the wording of the passage, in that the passage says that the researchers came to a conclusion about supernatural experiences, while the volunteers reported experiences that were merely “unusual.” In other words, even the passage provided some indication that the researchers may have made an unwarranted assumption in arriving at their conclusion.

If the assumption that the volunteers in the first group expected to have supernatural experiences is incorrect, then the entire argument falls apart. Thus, this choice wrecks the argument.

C. Before being told about the theater, the volunteers within each group varied considerably in their prior beliefs about supernatural experiences.

This choice could be tempting, because it says something about the volunteers’ beliefs in the type of experiences that the argument is about. However, once you look closely at what this choice actually says, you see that all it conveys is that within each group the people varied in the degree to which they believed in supernatural experiences. In other words, this choices neither differentiates the two groups nor gives us any reason to believe that the volunteers in the first half did not expect to have supernatural experiences. So, this choice does not weaken the argument.

D. Each unusual experience reported by the volunteers had a cause that did not involve the supernatural.

This choice is a trap, because it could be perceived as undermining the conclusion though it does not actually do so.

Since the conclusion of the argument is about people reporting supernatural experiences, information indicating that those people did not in fact have supernatural experiences might seem to undermine the conclusion.

Notice, however, that the reasoning of the argument involves people’s “expectations” and “unusual experiences” that people “reported.” The experiences do not have to actually be supernatural experiences for people to report them. They could report the experiences, and they could even believe that the experiences were supernatural, even if the experiences were not supernatural. So, this choice does not affect the argument at all.

E. The researchers did not believe that the theater was haunted.

The argument is based on what the volunteers believed, not what the researchers believed. So, this choice does not affect the argument.

The correct answer is B.

GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo
ConcIusion: Author says that reports of encounters with ghosts and other supernatural entities generally results from prior expectations of such events.

So If i break the causalty indicating that their could be some other event/factor that could have caused reports of encounters of ghosts and supernatural entities. Option B rightly says so by pointing out that if students of second group did not believe in the researchers` words then they will not have expectations of such events.

But for option D: It says that Each unusual experience reported by the volunteers had a cause that did not involve the supernatural.

Now if the unusual experiences were caused by expectations of such events then these expectations involve have supernatural entities and ghosts (as rightly said in the question stem-such events) Hence when option d says that the cause did not involve supernatural. Then apart from saying that the people did not have any supernatural experience inside it also says that the expectations of such events were not their. And one of the sources of these expectations has to be supernatural. Hence Option D weakens the argument.

Pl correct me.

CONCLUSION:
reports of encounters with ghosts and other supernatural entities generally result from prior expectations of such experiences.
If any option weakens this one that must be our answer.
Lets check each option

The conclusion is talking about first half of students not second half. IRRELEVANT.

Hmm.. If first half of volunteers has not believed the researchers statement then the researchers conclusion is false because even without expectations they were scared.SO keep B .

we should not assume something that is not mentioned in the passage.-OUT OF SCOPE.

This option is contradicting the argument because the researchers concluded that encounters of ghosts and other supernatural entities is because of prior expectations. we must take this as true and weaken the conclusion this ios not a reason to weaken the conclusion.In turn it is contradicting the original argument.ELIMINATE IT.

This is IRRELEVANT.
so Bis the Left out and the winner.

Passage analysis

In an experiment, volunteers walked individually through a dark, abandoned theater.

In an experiment, subjects were made to walk alone through a dark, deserted theater.

Half of the volunteers had been told that the theater was haunted and the other half that it was under renovation.

Before they went into the theater, half of the volunteers were told that the theater was haunted.
The other half were likewise told that the theater was being revamped.

The first half reported significantly more unusual experiences than the second did.

The first group of subjects had considerably more unusual experiences to narrate after the walk through the theater.
The second group had much fewer instances of unusual experiences to narrate.

The researchers concluded that reports of encounters with ghosts and other supernatural entities generally result from prior expectations of such experiences.

The researchers reached the conclusion that:
Usually people report meeting/experiencing ghosts and other supernatural entities if they have been anticipating such experiences from before-hand.

Conclusion
Prior expectations of supernatural experiences usually lead to reports of encounters with ghosts and other supernatural entities.

Pre-thinking
Weaken Framework
Now per our understanding of the passage, let’s first write down the weaken framework:

What new information will make us believe less in the causality
Cause: Prior expectations of supernatural experiences
Effect: Reports of encounters with ghosts and other supernatural entities

Given that
In an experiment, the subjects took a walk alone through a dark, deserted theatre.
Half of them were told before the experiment that the theatre was haunted
The other half were told the theatre was being revamped.
The first half had considerably more unusual experiences than the other.

Thought process

The argument is based on the idea of pre-conditioning of the mind.

Because the subjects were told before-hand that there were ghosts in the theatre (haunted), their minds were conditioned to believe that there were ghosts in the theatre. So, they were likely anticipating unusual experiences to happen to them.

So, any unusual experience they might have gone through, they would be more likely to link it to the presence of the supernatural.

On the other hand, the second group have no idea and thereby no anticipation of experiencing the supernatural. Hence, they are less likely to report the same.

Thus, if the whole issue is about pre-conditioning of the mind through prior information, then it is very important that the person believes in whatever he is being told.

Hence, we could rewrite the causality as:

Cause- belief in the information that the theatre was haunted
Effect- reported more unusual experiences.

Weakener

What if the first half did not believe in ghosts or did not believe that the theatre was haunted?

In that case, if they reported incidents of ghosts, it could not be linked to prior information of the supernatural. This would weaken the causality link.

So, an option saying that the first group actually did not believe in the story about the haunted theatre would weaken the causality in the conclusion.

Answer Choice Analysis
Option A

This option strengthens the conclusion, by strengthening the causality.
No cause- no effect. The second group had no prior information about the haunted theatre and therefore they did not believe that their experiences were supernatural.
Thus, this choice is incorrect.

Option B

This is in line with our pre-thinking.
Thus, this is the correct option.

Option C

How many of the total volunteers had prior beliefs in ghosts is not given. It is possible that some volunteers in the first group earlier did not believe in ghosts but after the theatre experience started believing in them. This would actually support the causality.
Therefore, the impact of this option is not clear.
Thus, this choice is incorrect.

Option D

The passage does not tell us that the volunteers were aware of the natural reason for the experience. Therefore, it is not important whether the experiences were actually because of supernatural reason or natural reason.
Thus, this choice is incorrect.

Option E

This too is irrelevant since the conclusion is about the volunteers.
Thus, this choice is incorrect.

GMATNinja Please advise:

B. All of the volunteers in the first half believed that the researchers’ statement that the theater was haunted was a lie

The reason I didn't choose B is that my thinking was "ok, just because all of those in the first group thought that the statement was lie DOES NOT mean that statement did not affect them". In other words, it's kinda like telling someone not to think of a bear (sounds familiar? it's from an experiment). It would be difficult not to think of a bear afterwards...

What is wrong with my thinking here?

Thank you!

Take another look at the exact language of the researchers' conclusion:

The researchers don't conclude that people are just affected when they are told that a place is haunted. Instead, they argue that people report supernatural things because they have "prior expectations of such experiences." So, for the researchers' conclusion to hold up, the people reporting supernatural events MUST expect to experience the events. It's not enough for them to be subconsciously affected by the report that the theater is haunted.

(B) really messes up this argument:

If people didn't believe the researchers, then they wouldn't expect to encounter any supernatural beings.

(B) weakens the researchers' argument, so (B) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

In an experiment, volunteers walked individually through a dark, abandoned theater.
There was an experiment. In the experiment, people walked through an abandoned theater. They walked individually.

Half of the volunteers had been told that the theater was haunted and the other half that it was under renovation.
Half the people were told that the theater was haunted, and the other half were told that it was under renovation.

So the volunteers were divided into two groups. The two groups were given different information about the same theater.

The first half reported significantly more unusual experiences than the second did.
The first group (the group which was told that the theater was haunted) reported many more unusual experiences than the second group.

I’m wondering what experiences constitute ‘unusual experiences’. Perhaps we’ll find out.

The researchers concluded that reports of encounters with ghosts and other supernatural entities generally result from prior expectations of such experiences.
The researchers reached a conclusion based on the experiment. They concluded that reports of encounters with ghosts resulted from expectations of such experiences. (Basically, the fact that the first group was told the theater was haunted led to the higher number of reports of paranormal activities.)

Gist:

1. Researchers conducted an experiment.
2. Many volunteers walked through an abandoned theater individually.
a. Half of them were told that the theater was haunted.
b. The other half were told that the theater was under renovation.
3. A lot more of the people who were told that the theater was haunted reported unusual activity in the theater.
4. The researchers concluded that generally people report experiencing paranormal activity as a result of expectation of paranormal activity.

Researchers’ logic:

1. We told half the volunteers that the theater is haunted
2. (That’s why they expected paranormal activity)
3. That’s why more volunteers from this half reported paranormal experiences

More people from the first group reported paranormal activity because we told them that the theater was haunted. Because we told them the theater was haunted, they expected the theater to be haunted.

Gap(s) in logic:

1. This is a classic case of a causation-correlation flaw. It is possible that:
a. Maybe their experience was not impacted by what the researchers told them. It was a coincidence that more people from the first group reported paranormal activity.
b. The first group consisted of more people who believed in the paranormal from before the experiment.
c. The first group actually experienced more paranormal activity. This might sound far fetched, but ghosts do exist, don’t they?
(Psst … what’s that behind you?)
2. I mentioned this while explaining the passage too. The first half experienced more ‘unusual activities’. The passage did not elaborate on what kind of activities were considered unusual. Maybe they did not consider the experiences paranormal.
E.g. Maybe they saw a dog walking around wearing reading glasses, and they found it unusual. I mean that would be pretty unusual, no?
3. The results of the experiment perhaps cannot be generalised.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the researchers’ reasoning?

What is the researchers’ reasoning?

X: We told half the volunteers that the theater is haunted

Y: More volunteers from this half reported paranormal experiences

X caused Y: More volunteers from that half reported paranormal experiences because we told them that the theater is haunted.

This causal relationship is something the researchers have concluded. They actually bring in another aspect between X and Y - expectation.

We told them → They expected → Reported more paranormal experiences

Framework: The correct answer should indicate that the reason for the different experience by the two groups was not related to the different information they got initially.




A. None of the volunteers in the second half believed that the unusual experiences they reported were supernatural.
Incorrect.
First off, let’s consider the following statement:
A’. None of the volunteers in the experiment believed that the unusual experiences they reported were supernatural.

What impact do you think this statement has?

This statement weakens the reasoning. It highlights the second gap I mentioned above - ‘unusual’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘supernatural’.

What about this statement:

A’’. None of the volunteers in the second half had any unusual experiences.

Which one is the second half?

The half that were told that the theater was abandoned.
The half that reported a lot fewer unusual experiences.

This answer choice mildly strengthens the reasoning. Many volunteers in the first half had unusual experiences; none of the volunteers in the second half did. So, perhaps the information that the researchers gave the volunteers initially impacted their experiences.

Now, back to the original answer choice.

I believe that one is more in line with the second variation I mentioned above.

So,

1. that half reported a lot fewer unusual experiences
2. on top of that, the experiences they had were not even supernatural (from this option)

I start to believe that the information the volunteers were given at the beginning did have an impact on what they experienced.
This answer choice mildly strengthens the reasoning.

B. All of the volunteers in the first half believed that the researchers’ statement that the theater was haunted was a lie.
Correct.
Which one is the first half?

The half that were told that the theater was haunted.

The half that reported a lot more unusual experiences.

The logic of the researchers was:

We told them that the theater was haunted → That’s why they expected paranormal activity → That’s why they reported more experiences of paranormal activity

This answer choice weakens the first link. If these volunteers believed that the researchers’ statement was a lie, they would not expect paranormal activities on hearing that lie. So, their experiences would not have been impacted by their expectations.

Now, you might think: Although the volunteers believed the researchers’ statement was a lie, maybe the idea got implanted in their minds (Inception style), and that’s why they reported more unusual experiences. So, this answer choice doesn’t weaken.

That could be true. So, this answer choice doesn’t destroy the reasoning. It doesn’t ascertain that

There’s a flaw in this reasoning.

The researchers’ conclusion includes the phrase “prior expectations of such experiences”. The discussion here is about what the volunteers expected. Their expectations would be based on what they believe, and not what is going on in their subconscious mind.

C. Before being told about the theater, the volunteers within each group varied considerably in their prior beliefs about supernatural experiences.
Incorrect.
First off, let’s be clear about what this statement means.

The answer choice is not in line with the gap 1b I pointed out above. The option is not telling us that the first group believed more in paranormal activities from before than did the second group.

Answer choice: The volunteers within each group varied in their prior beliefs.

So, in terms of level of belief in supernatural activities, people in both groups lay across the spectrum. There was diversity in both groups.

Once I learn this new piece of information, I’m thinking that the reason for the difference in reporting was not because of their pre-existing beliefs at least. By taking away one gap I identified earlier, this answer choice strengthens the argument.


D. Each unusual experience reported by the volunteers had a cause that did not involve the supernatural.
Incorrect.
No impact.
This answer choice is different from the second gap I mentioned above. In the gap, I discussed how the term ‘unusual’ is quite vague and what the volunteers term as unusual, they may not even consider supernatural.

This answer choice is talking about the truth behind the experience.

E.g.

1. A volunteer saw a white cloth flying in the air.
2. The volunteer believed that the cloth was a ghost and reported the experience.
3. Now we learn that the cloth was a curtain that was swaying in the wind.

That last piece is irrelevant to the argument.

The issue here is:

Did the volunteer believe that the flying cloth was a ghost because he expected some supernatural activity?

Or would he anyway have believed the flying cloth to be a ghost, even if he did not expect any supernatural activity?

The issue is not whether the volunteer was correct in believing that the flying cloth was a ghost.

Why the cloth was actually flying is irrelevant to the argument.

E. The researchers did not believe that the theater was haunted.
Incorrect.
No impact. The argument is about the volunteers and their expectations. What the researchers believed is irrelevant.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.