First, you need to understand the argument stating that "individuals who meditate regularly are less likely to engage in unethical actions, " so this is the point you need to weaken. So, if anything states that meditators and non-meditators have the same ethical behaviour, then it means that meditation doesn't help improve the ethical behaviour of any person, and their claim is wrong.
If you still didn't get it here's a more detailed explanation for you
RiyaJ0032,
The spiritual leaders claim that meditation leads to increased moral behavior. This is a positive claim asserting a causal relationship: meditation → improved ethical behavior.
Answer choice A states that a study found meditators "do not demonstrate significantly different ethical behavior compared to non-meditators." This directly contradicts the spiritual leaders' claim because:
- If meditation truly caused increased moral behavior (as claimed), we would expect to see meditators demonstrating better ethical behavior than non-meditators.
- The study finding "no significant difference" means the expected improvement in ethical behavior was not observed, despite meditators having the claimed increase in self-awareness.
Your example with persons A and B actually highlights why answer A is correct. In your scenario:
- Person A meditates
- Person B doesn't meditate
- Both help people equally (demonstrate the same ethical behavior)
This pattern of evidence is exactly what answer choice A describes, and it contradicts the spiritual leaders' argument. If meditation truly caused increased moral behavior, we would expect person A to demonstrate better ethical behavior than person B. The fact that they don't suggests meditation is not causing the claimed improvement in ethics.
The phrase "do not demonstrate significantly different ethical behavior" doesn't imply unethical behavior - it simply means there was no measurable improvement in ethical behavior among meditators. This directly weakens the claim that meditation leads to increased moral behavior.
I hope it's clear
RiyaJ0032.
RiyaJ0032
what do you mean that not showing "improved ethical behavior" is evidence for demonstrating unethical behavior
this is illogical
let's say A meditates, B does not
A helps people around him
while B also does
both are doing ethical action, but A is not doing an ethical action "significantly different" than what B does
does this mean he engages in unethical behavior?
No
if some expert can clarify
Thanks
MartyMurrayGMATNinjaTwonapolean92728
Answer: A
The correct answer is (A) A study found that individuals who meditate daily report higher self-awareness but do not demonstrate significantly different ethical behavior compared to non-meditators.
Explanation:
The argument claims that meditation leads to increased moral behavior by enhancing self-awareness and inner peace. Option A directly contradicts this causal relationship by providing evidence that while meditation does increase self-awareness (supporting part of the premise), it does not actually result in improved ethical behavior (contradicting the conclusion). This breaks the claimed connection between meditation and moral behavior, severely weakening the argument.
Why each other option is incorrect:
(B) This shows that some people misuse meditation, but doesn't weaken the general claim that meditation typically increases moral behavior. It only identifies exceptions rather than challenging the core relationship.
(C) This merely points out that different types of meditation exist with different focuses, but doesn't contradict the claim that meditation generally leads to more ethical behavior. It just qualifies the type of meditation being discussed.
(D) This statement is about non-meditators who are ethical, which doesn't address whether meditation increases moral behavior for those who do practice it. The existence of ethical non-meditators doesn't disprove that meditation could improve ethics for practitioners.
(E) While this shows examples that seem to contradict the conclusion, isolated cases of unethical meditators don't necessarily invalidate a general trend. These could be exceptions rather than evidence against the overall pattern claimed in the argument.