2016 GMAT Official Guide, Question 1, Page 502

Neuroscientist: Memory evolved to help animals react appropriately to situations they encounter by drawing on the past experience of similar situations. But this does not require that animals perfectly recall every detail of all their experiences. Instead, to function well, memory should generalize from past experiences that are similar to the current one.

The neuroscientist's statements, if true, most strongly support which of the following conclusions?

(A) At least some animals perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences.
(B) Perfectly recalling every detail of all their past experiences could help at least some animals react more appropriately than they otherwise would to new situations they encounter.
(C) Generalizing from past experiences requires clear memories of most if not all the details of those experiences.
(D) Recalling every detail of all past experiences would be incompatible with any ability to generalize from those experiences.
(E) Animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if they draw on generalizations from past experiences of similar situations.

Explanation

Question Type: Inference
Boil It Down (Simplified & Abbreviated Summary of the Prompt): Generalized memory helps animals better function in similar situations
Goal: Based on the prompt, find the option that has to be true with 100% certainty.

Analysis: This is a straightforward Inference question. Given the information in the prompt that animals have evolved to draw on past experience to function better in similar situations, AND that the memories need not be perfect, just general, we need to find an option that follows with 100% certainty. In Inference questions, GMAC will be guaranteed to deliver 2 types of incorrect options:

1) Those that are too extreme to be supported from the facts given
2) Options that seem reasonable, but are not supported from the facts given

This question has both. Let's see which option best achieves our objectives:

A) From the facts given do we KNOW that at least some animals have the ability to perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences? No. From what's given, maybe, but maybe (and probably not). If the option is not 100% supported, DUMP IT! This is an example of an option that's reasonable, but unsupported.

B) This option is doomed right from the beginning. Since we don't know that any animal is even capable of recalling EVERY detail of ALL their past experiences, this option is discussing circumstances that are totally unsupported by the prompt. This option draws from circumstances that are too extreme and then makes a reasonable claim (perfect retention might help). The thing is, how do we know 100%? We don't. Maybe perfect retention is a curse. Maybe any animal that would be capable of perfect retention would be overloaded in a similar circumstance. This option is not supported with 100% certainty, so DUMP IT!

C) Reasonable but not 100% supported. Do we know that a successful generalization from past experiences requires clear memories of MOST if not ALL of the details of those experiences? No. Maybe a successful generalization requires 20% recollection for all we know. DUMP IT! Note, that "MOST if not ALL of the details of those experiences" ventures into extreme territory. We don't actually know that such a high level of retention is even possible.

D) This option goes to extreme on the negative side. So maybe an animal is capable of perfect recollection, but can we infer that this animal would then be incapable of generalizing from that information because of it? No. Too extreme. Maybe the animal could do a wonderful job of generalizing from perfect retention. Not supported with 100% certainty, so DUMP IT!

E) Yes! Notice the delicate and measured wording of this option. It's worded in such a way as to be GUARANTEED from the facts in the prompt. Yes, animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if the draw on generalizations from past experiences or similar situations. In fact, this option is so agreeable with the information in the prompt, it's probably playing it too conservative. We know this option with 100% certainty, therefore it's the correct option.
_________________

_________________

Neuroscientist: Memory evolved to help animals react appropriately to situations they encounter by drawing on the past experience of similar situations. But this does not require that animals perfectly recall every detail of all their experiences. Instead, to function well, memory should generalize from past experiences that are similar to the current one.

The neuroscientist's statements, if true, most strongly support which of the following conclusions?

(A) At least some animals perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences.
(B) Perfectly recalling every detail of all their past experiences could help at least some animals react more appropriately than they otherwise would to new situations they encounter.
(C) Generalizing from past experiences requires clear memories of most if not all the details of those experiences.
(D) Recalling every detail of all past experiences would be incompatible with any ability to generalize from those experiences.
(E) Animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if they draw on generalizations from past experiences of similar situations.
Pre think answer-Generalization from past experiences help the animals to react more appropriately than recalling every specific detail

A-This may be true but not always true since we do no know the number of animals who recalls every specific detail and the number of animals who generalize from past experiences
B-It states the opposite since it has been stated in the argument generalization is preferred over recalling every specific detail
C-Requirement of generalizing from past experiences is not the issue here
D-Incompatibilty factor of generalization and recalling specific detail is not discussed here hence out of scope
E-Similar to pre think step hence correct

Evolution of Memory
 
Step 1: Identify the Question

The words support which of the following conclusions in the question stem indicate that this is an Inference question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

Purpose of memory: past experience → smarter reactions
BUT don’t need all details (can generalize)

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Inference questions, the goal is to find an answer that can be proven based ONLY on the information in the argument.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) The argument doesn’t give any evidence regarding the memory abilities of particular animals, only information about how memory works in general. In fact, the argument specifies that animals don’t need to perfectly recall details, since they can generalize.
(B) The argument specifies that memory can function well without perfect recall of details. It’s possible that perfectly recalling details would cause memory to function even better, but the argument doesn’t claim that this is the case.
(C) The argument contrasts perfectly recalling every detail with generalizing from past experiences, using the word instead. The argument does not indicate that generalizing from past experiences requires recall of most if not all details; it’s possible that recall of only some, not most, details is required.
(D) Animals can generalize from past experiences to make up for their inability to recall every detail perfectly. However, an animal that could recall every detail perfectly might still generalize from past experiences. The argument doesn’t provide any information about such animals, so no conclusions about them can be drawn.
(E) CORRECT. The first sentence of the argument claims that memory helps animals react appropriately. In the final sentence, the author claims that memory can function well by generalizing from similar situations. This answer combines those two claims: if the animal generalizes from similar past situations, it can then react more appropriately in future situations.
_________________

1m 40s to solve this.
I think this can be solved in less than a minute by many.

Situation:

A neuroscientist claims that memory evolved to help animals learn how to react appropriately by generalizing from past experiences but that this does not require animals to remember all details of those experiences.

Reasoning:

What conclusion would the neuroscientist’s theory about memory most strongly support? The neuroscientist asserts that the evolutionary function of memory is to help animals learn to react appropriately by drawing on generalizations from similar experiences they have had. If memory is to serve this function, drawing on generalizations must actually help animals learn to react more appropriately than they otherwise would, even when they do not remember all the details of past experiences.

"E" is the correct choice - If the evolutionary function of memory is to help animals react more appropriately by drawing on generalizations from past experiences, it follows that animal memories can often successfully serve this function in this manner.
_________________

Neuroscientist: Memory evolved to help animals react appropriately to situations they encounter by drawing on the past experience of similar situations. But this does not require that animals perfectly recall every detail of all their experiences. Instead, to function well, memory should generalize from past experiences that are similar to the current one.

Main point that we need to keep in mind while solving this question - 1.) Animal use past experiences to react in similar situation; 2.) Not necessary to perfectly recall experiences and 3.) To function well, it is better to generalize past experiences instead of perfectly recalling it

The neuroscientist's statements, if true, most strongly support which of the following conclusions?

(A) At least some animals perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences.[Out of Scope: The premise does not mention what some animals do and what others do not.]

(B) Perfectly recalling every detail of all their past experiences could help at least some animals react more appropriately than they otherwise would to new situations they encounter.[Out of Scope: Since this is inference question, we cannot bring is new information and using the information given in the passage, we cannot infer this. ]

(C) Generalizing from past experiences requires clear memories of most if not all the details of those experiences.[This is not mentioned in the passage - the passage simple mentions that we need to generalize from past experiences, whether we need most or least details is not mentioned, hence the statement is out of context]

(D) Recalling every detail of all past experiences would be incompatible with any ability to generalize from those experiences.[We know that to function well, we need to generalize, but we do not know if recalling every detail is compatible or incompatible. Hence even this statement can be eliminated.]

(E) Animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if they draw on generalizations from past experiences of similar situations.["react more appropriately than they otherwise would" - this statement is similar to " in order to function well" and hence, this clearly has to be the answer.]

OG16 Question 1 P502
OG17 CR 544 P510[/quote]
_________________

Main premise of the argument:
Animals do not need to recall each and every memory of a past incident to react to current one; Instead they should generalize from past experiences to function well.

So Conclusion would be: If animals generalize from past experiences of similar conditions, they will react to current situation appropriately.

Only Option E states above point, hence the answer.

Assumption: Generalization from past experiences = react appropriately.
We need to strengthen the assumption.

(A) At least some animals perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences. - Recalling every detail is not necessary so, it does not strengthen.
(B) Perfectly recalling every detail of all their past experiences could help at least some animals react more appropriately than they otherwise would to new situations they encounter. - Yes, may be possible but not discussed in the passage.
(C) Generalizing from past experiences requires clear memories of most if not all the details of those experiences. - Not mentioned in the passage.
(D) Recalling every detail of all past experiences would be incompatible with any ability to generalize from those experiences. - Maybe but not mentioned in the passage and this option in any way strengthen the assumption.
(E) Animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if they draw on generalizations from past experiences of similar situations. - Yes, this will strengthen.

Summary of question: In order to have an appropriate reaction to a situation, the animals draw upon a similar experience they underwent in the past. To do so, memory helps them. Additionally, for memory to function properly it needs to give a general description of the past experience and not specific details.

Asked: To find conclusion

Prethinking: We cannot effectively pre-think in Conclusion questions because there are multiple conclusions possible. However, we can certainly observe, that the answer choice must necessarily be true given the argument. Additionally, conclusion should be a statement that explains why every sentence in the argument is included, in the first place.

Option analysis:
A) This is out of scope and cannot be verified by information given in the question
B) Cannot be verified if perfectly recalling every detail of all their past experiences could in fact help at least some animals react more appropriately
C) Again, cannot be verified
D) This option takes the sentence "to function well..." to an extreme. While the author speaks of how in order for memory to function properly, it should generalise from past experiences, it does not go to the extreme end of implying that ability to recall specific details and ability to generalise are incompatible and hence can't happen together in the same animal
E) Correct! It can be verified as it is a summary of the entire argument in one sentence

ANALYSIS of STIMULUS

1. According to a neuroscientist, the memory of animals evolved in a particular manner for a specific reason
2. The reason was – To help the animals remember how they dealt with past situations and in turn help them to deal with present similar situations
3. What is not required - they need not remember all the details of the past experiences
4. What is required - For functioning well, their memory should just generalize the data from the past experiences and this generalized knowledge will be good enough for the animal to use while approaching a similar situation in the present.

ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTION STEM

If what the neuroscientist says is absolutely true, then which of the answer options finds the strongest support from the information given in the passage.

ANSWER CHOICE ELIMINATION

(A) At least some animals perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences.

The passage clearly suggests that all animals in general are supposed to have the ability to recall. From the passage we know that for the memory to adequately serve the animals in their present situation, it is not necessary for the animals to remember all detail of that situation. But the passage does not tell us how many, if any, animals can recall “perfectly every detail”. It is possible that none of the animals can really recall all details but can still generalize. This is a might be true choice.
Incorrect choice.

(B) Perfectly recalling every detail of all their past experiences could help at least some animals react more appropriately than they otherwise would to new situations they encounter.

Per this choice recalling every detail will help animals react better than they would if they did not recall every detail.
From the passage we know that for the memory to adequately serve the animals in their present situation, it is not necessary for the animals to remember every detail of that situation. They can simply generalize without remembering all details. This choice is a distortion of the given information.
Incorrect choice.

(C) Generalizing from past experiences requires clear memories of most if not all the details of those experiences.

Per the passage, for the memory to function well, all that is required is to draw generalizations from past experiences. In order to draw these generalizations, whether every detail or most of it needs to be remembered or not is not supported by the passage. The requirements for generalizing are out of scope of the argument.
Incorrect choice.

(D) Recalling every detail of all past experiences would be incompatible with any ability to generalize from those experiences

Per this choice if the animal recalls every detail of all experiences, it will not be able to generalize.
The passage says that in order to generalize from past experiences it is not necessary to remember every detail of those experiences. But this does not mean that if an animal can remember every detail of all past experiences it will not be able to generalize from those experiences. This choice is a distortion and half-truth.

Incorrect choice.

(E) Animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if they draw on generalizations from past experiences of similar situations.

Per the passage, memory evolved to help animals remember past experiences so that they could draw generalizations from those and apply them to similar current situations. (The key word here is “appropriately”).
If the purpose of the memory evolving in a certain manner was to help animals react appropriately to situations they encounter by drawing on the past experience of similar situations, then generalizations will definitely help to serve that purpose. Had their memories not evolved in this manner, they would have been able to deal with situations less appropriately.
Correct Choice.
_________________

An alternate approach is to apply the NEGATION TEST.
When the correct answer choice is negated, the passage will be CONTRADICTED.

E, negated:
Animals rarely react more appropriately if they draw on generalizations from past experiences.
This negation contradicts the passage's contention that memory should generalize from past experiences.
Since the negation of E contradicts the passage, E is a valid inference: a statement that MUST BE TRUE, given the information in the passage.

The correct answer is E.

The other options, negated:

(A) No animals perfectly recall every detail.
This negation does not contradict the passage, which offers no information about the proportion of animals able to recall every detail.

(B) Perfectly recalling every detail would not help any animals.
This negation confirms the passage's contention that animals do not need to remember every detail of past experiences.

C) Generalizing from past experiences does not require clear memories of all the details.
This negation confirms the passage's contention that animals do not need to remember every detail of past experiences.

(D) Recalling every detail of all past experiences would be compatible with an ability to generalize.
This negation does not contradict the passage, which states only that recalling every detail is not required.

Since none of these negations contradicts the passage, eliminate A, B, C and D.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Option E is correct

Hi LithiumIon

This is one interesting question of Critical Reasoning.

Question stem: Find among the options that is supported by the information given in the passage. Thus, this is an inference question.

Understanding passage:
Memory evolved to help animals react appropriately to situations they encounter by drawing on the past experience of similar situations. But this does not require that animals perfectly recall every detail of all their experiences.
>>The author begins by stating that memory evolved to help animals react according to situations.
>>>>>This is because memory helps to draw past experiences of similar situations.
>>However, this does not require that animals perfectly recall every detail

Instead, to function well, memory should generalize from past experiences that are similar to the current one.
>>For functioning, memory should generalize from past experiences.

Pre-thinking:
What new information can be deduced from the above passage?
Generalizations from past experiences help animals respond appropriately to situations.

Answer Choice Analysis:

(A) At least some animals perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences.
Out of scope
The passage does not shed any light on whether or not some animals perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences.

(B) Perfectly recalling every detail of all their past experiences could help at least some animals react more appropriately than they otherwise would to new situations they encounter.
Out of scope
The argument does not give us any information regarding this claim.

(C) Generalizing from past experiences requires clear memories of most if not all the details of those experiences.
Out of scope
The argument does not support this claim.

(D) Recalling every detail of all past experiences would be incompatible with any ability to generalize from those experiences.
Irrelevant
The argument talks about generalisations helping to overcome situations. It does not refer to whether or not recalling every detail of all past experiences would be incompatible with ability to generalize.

(E) Animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if they draw on generalizations from past experiences of similar situations.
This is in line with our pre-thinking. The argument supports the claim that if animals draw on generalizations from past, they often react more appropriately.

This in my opinion is a 650-700 level question. I hope I elaborated enough.
Is there anything you would like me to focus on more??
Pls share your thoughts.
_________________

GMATNinja, MentorTutoring, VeritasKarishma

The wording of answer choice leaves me confused. Could anyone please help me in understanding the meaning and structure of the following part of option E?

“Animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter’’

My questions are:
1. Is there any verb omitted but understood after the word would?
2. What is the role of the word otherwise in the sentence above?
3.In the stimulus, what words represent that “Animals can often react more appropriately’’
4. In words "situations they encounter", after the word situations, a clause started; is there a relative pronoun understood between the two entities?

The questions above might sound silly or grammatical; your answer must help me in understanding the meaning, so thanks in advance.

Hello, sjuniv32. I will respond in-line below.

I hope that helps. If you have further questions, silly or otherwise (although I did not feel your questions were silly in this case), feel free to ask. Thank you for bringing my attention to the question.

- Andrew

The Neurologist claimed animal react appropriately to a situation if they have past experience of that sort. But every detail of the past event need not to do well rather a general or overall knowledge will enough to do good with new similar job.

We need an option which will strengthen the conclusion that animals do good using learning from past experience.
A. Says at least some animal can recall details of some or least event. It doesn’t say anything about correlation between
experience of past event and its result in the similar present event.
B. Conclusion says about a general remembrance. Animals do not need perfect recall of event.
C. And D Weaken the conclusion of the Neuroscientist.

E animals can do good with a general remembrance of past similar event.
E is the Answer.
_________________

Understanding & Analysing the Passage

“Memory evolved to help animals react appropriately to situations they encounter by drawing on the past experience of similar situations.”

• This statement talks about how memory has evolved in animals to help them.
• Memory helps by providing a reference, based on the past experience of similar situations; this helps animals react appropriately to certain situations.

“But this does not require that animals perfectly recall every detail of all their experiences.”

• Detailed recollection is not necessary to react appropriately to certain situations. Thus, we can infer that a general recollection of similar situations in the past is adequate to help animals react appropriately to situations they encounter.

“Instead, to function well, memory should generalize from past experiences that are similar to the current one”

• The author coveys a change in the flow of information by stating that generalizing from past experience is actually helpful for animals to function well.

• Now, from the previous sentence, we figured that detailed recollection is not required. However, in this sentence, the author mentions that memory “should” generalize, which means that to react appropriately, general recollection is adequate.


Pre - thinking

We need to find a logical conclusion, that is 100% true, based on the argument.

Analyzing the premise, we can infer that
1. We can infer that without the evolution of memory, appropriate reactions to certain situations may not be possible.

2. It is imperative that an animal must experience a certain situation in the past to be able to use memory to react appropriately to similar situations in the future.

3. Detailed recollection is not necessary.

4. General recollection will help in functioning well.


Analyze the Answer Choices

(A) At least some animals perfectly recall every detail of at least some past experiences. INCORRECT

o The passage does not talk about any animals having perfect recollection. From the given information, we cannot know for certain if any animals indeed have a perfect recollection of past experiences. This actually the opposite of what the author intends to convey.

(B) Perfectly recalling every detail of all their past experiences could help at least some animals react more appropriately than they otherwise would to new situations they encounter. INCORRECT


o The information in the passage does not support this option as we know perfect recollection is not required; In fact, generalizing helps memory function well. No information on whether perfect recollection will help some animals or not is provided in the passage.

(C) Generalizing from past experiences requires clear memories of most if not all the details of those experiences. INCORRECT


o This option is ambiguous since we have no information provided to know how much detail of a past experience is required to generalize a memory. It can be the case that only 10% of the memory is required to generalize it.

(D) Recalling every detail of all past experiences would be incompatible with any ability to generalize from those experiences. INCORRECT


o This statement has no proof in the passage. The passage does not talk about the compatibility of recalling every detail with generalizing from those experiences.

o Whether animals with perfect recollection will or will not be able to generalize past experience is not known to us. Even if the animals had the ability to recall every detail perfectly, the author specifically states that it is not required to generalize from those experiences.

(E) Animals can often react more appropriately than they otherwise would to situations they encounter if they draw on generalizations from past experiences of similar situations. CORRECT

o This option is in line with the information provided in the passage. Thus, this option is correct.
_________________

Thanks! But in my opinion, the answer should be (D), which it isn't. My reasoning is that in the passage, the word 'instead' is used to show contrast between 'generalising' and 'perfectly recalling every detail'. From this, we can infer that they are mutually exclusive or opposed. Answer (E) equates 'memory functioning' well with 'reacting appropriately'. Reasonable yes, but not inferred.

Would really appreciate your thoughts?

Cheers