In an experiment, one group of volunteers was shown words associated

Question

In an experiment, one group of volunteers was shown words associated with money, such as "salary," whereas another group was shown neutral words. Afterward, individuals in both groups solved puzzles unrelated to money. Those who had been shown words associated with money were much less likely to request or offer help with the puzzles. The researchers concluded from this evidence that preoccupation with money makes people less cooperative.

Which of the following is an assumption the researchers' reasoning requires?

A. At least some of the volunteers were preoccupied with money before being shown the words.
B. Being shown the neutral words did not cause the volunteers to become preoccupied with subjects other than money.
C. Most of the volunteers who were shown neutral words requested or offered help with the puzzles.
D. Most of the volunteers in both groups succeeded in solving the puzzles, either with or without help.
E. The volunteers who were shown neutral words were, on average, less preoccupied with money while solving the puzzles than the other volunteers were.

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-w68cgv0q.png [ 99.02 KiB | Viewed 5577 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

Official Answer and Stats are available only to registered users. Register/Login.

Need more Tests to Practice? GMAT Club Tests give expert solutions for every question in full and sectional GMAT Focus mocks. Learn more →

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

Explanation

In an experiment, one group of volunteers was shown words associated with money, such as "salary," whereas another group was shown neutral words. Afterward, individuals in both groups solved puzzles unrelated to money. Those who had been shown words associated with money were much less likely to request or offer help with the puzzles. The researchers concluded from this evidence that preoccupation with money makes people less cooperative.

Which of the following is an assumption the researchers' reasoning requires?

Which of the following is an assumption the researchers' reasoning requires?

The researchers' conclusion is the following:

preoccupation with money makes people less cooperative

The support for the conclusion is that, volunteers "who had been shown words associated with money were much less likely to request or offer help with the puzzles."

We see that the conclusion is about "preoccupation with money" whereas the evidence is about "shown words associated with money." So, the correct answer will likely somehow connect being shown words associated with money with preoccupation with money.

A At least some of the volunteers were preoccupied with money before being shown the words.

The researchers don't need to assume that volunteers were preoccupied with money before being shown the words. After all, their reasoning is that people were caused to become preoccupied with money by their being shown the words. So, regardless of whether some volunteers were preoccupied with money before being shown the words, the researchers have reason to believe that the people shown the words were preoccupied with money.

Eliminate.

B Being shown the neutral words did not cause the volunteers to become preoccupied with subjects other than money.

This choice is tricky because we could reason that, if it's not true, then the other volunteers were also preoccupied and thus that there wasn't really any difference between the states of mind of the volunteers in the two groups and the results don't show what the researchers believe they do.

However, there's a key detail we need to notice to see that this choice doesn't work: the conclusion is about the effect of being "preoccupied with money" specifically, not just "preoccupied."

So, even if the other volunteers were preoccupied with subjects other than money, they theoretically weren't preoccupied with money. Thus, even if this choice is not true, the difference believed by the researchers to exist still existed, and thus the evidence still supports the conclusion.

Eliminate.

C Most of the volunteers who were shown neutral words requested or offered help with the puzzles.

The passage says, "Those who had been shown words associated with money were much less likely to request or offer help with the puzzles." So, there was a clear difference between the behavior of those shown words associated with money and those shown neutral words.

That difference exists regardless of whether "Most of the volunteers who were shown neutral words requested or offered help with the puzzles." After all, even if under half of the volunteers shown neutral words requested or offered help, it's still the case that those who had been shown words associated with money were much less likely to request or offer help, and that difference between the two groups is what supports the conclusion, not the extent to which volunteers who were shown neutral words requested or offered help.

So, this argument does not depend on this choice.

Eliminate.

D Most of the volunteers in both groups succeeded in solving the puzzles, either with or without help.

The conclusion is based on the actions of volunteers involving requesting or offering help. Whether the volunteers solved the puzzles is irrelevant. After all, regardless of whether they solved the puzzles, the extent to which they requested or offered help still could have been affected by preoccupation with money.

Eliminate.

E The volunteers who were shown neutral words were, on average, less preoccupied with money while solving the puzzles than the other volunteers were.

In analyzing the argument we saw that the evidence is about being volunteers being shown words associated with money while the conclusion is about preoccupation with money. So, the researchers must have assumed that being shown words associated with money is connected with preoccupation with money.

Another way of looking at the reasoning is that the researchers must have assumed that those not shown words associated with money were not preoccupied with money.

In general, the researchers must have assumed that there was a difference between the levels of preoccupation with money of the volunteers who had been shown words associated with money and those who had been shown neutral words.

So, we can see that the researchers must have assumed what this choice says, that the volunteers who had been shown neutral words were less preoccupied with money than the others. After all, if they were not less preoccupied with money, then the evidence would not support the conclusion.

The correct answer is (E).

johnnymbikes · Answer

Experiment has 2 groups:
Group A: Money related words
Group B: Random words

Results of the experiment show that those in Group A asked for / gave less help than Group B  BECAUSE   they were busy thinking about money.

In order for this conclusion to be valid, "what must be assumed to be true?"

Goal Set:
- The correct answer should be something along the lines of: Group B did not think about money (or did much less than Group A) and therefore the scientists could compare "apples to apples" and formulate the conclusion.

E) The volunteers who were shown neutral words were, on average, less preoccupied with money while solving the puzzles than the other volunteers were.

This shows that Group B was thinking less about money, fits our goal set!

B) Being shown the neutral words did not cause the volunteers to become preoccupied with subjects other than money.
This is a trap answer > because of the 2nd half of the statement; it's saying that although group B was shown neutral words, the people were still thinking about money.

Dbrunik · Answer

Not sure how this question is ranked as hard, as i think E makes great sense here, relative to the others, even if you cant disprove A (which is the most confusing answer choice in my opinion).

apply the negation technique to E and you see that the argument clearly falls apart.

if the volunteers in the neutral category were more preoccupied with money, as opposed to less, how does that affect the argument? well, if it is now the case that both groups are preoccupied with money regardless of what card they were shown, then it cannot be the case that the preoccupation with money is causing the group that was shown words associated with money to be less likely to help. It has to be some other variable, because we have equalized the preoccupation with money in our negation.

therefore, in order for the passages argument to stay in tact, we must assume that the neutral group were less preoccupied with money. (for if they were not less, then there would be some other variable that could explain it)

Borrat · Answer

a) negate: Non were preoccupied with money before :  irrelevant to the claim, as the claim starts when preoccupation is at play.  
b) negate: neutral words caused the volunteers to become preoccupied with subjects other than money : this is a frameshift, since the argument is about money 
c) negate: some of the volunteers who were shown neutral words requested or offered help with the puzzles:  strengthener, "hey, check it out the others did the opposite, so my idea is strengthened" 
d)  succeeding is a frameshift 
e) Negation: Neutral-word volunteers were NOT less preoccupied with money during puzzles (i.e., same or more preoccupied) :  If that negation is true, the conclusion collapses: you can’t claim “money preoccupation makes people less cooperative” if the neutral group wasn’t actually less money-preoccupied.

vaibhav_bisht · Answer

while i was sloving the question of assumption, conclusion "preoccupation with money cause people to be less makes people less cooperative.
reasoning " Those who had been shown words associated with money were much less likely to request or offer help with the puzzles" and this passage we don't have any view on the people how they perform or they coperate in the quiz that's why i choose option c

MartyMurray · Answer

You mentioned the following statement from the passage:

Those who had been shown words associated with money were much less likely to request or offer help with the puzzles.

Notice that, if "Those who had been shown words associated with money were ... LESS likely to request or offer help," then we know that those who had not been shown words associated with money were MORE likely to request or offer help.

So, the argument does not involve an assumption about what the people not shown words associated with money did. Rather, it makes a statement that indicates what they did.

Thus, the information provided by (C), "Most of the volunteers who were shown neutral words requested or offered help with the puzzles," is not a necessary assumption because the argument has already indicated how those volunteers acted.

Usernamevisible · Answer

Step 1: What did the researchers actually do?

The researchers did not measure whether the participants were preoccupied with money. They only did three things. Group 1 was shown words related to money, such as "salary." Group 2 was shown neutral words. Then both groups solved puzzles, and the researchers observed how often participants requested or offered help. From this experiment, the only fact they established is that participants who were shown money-related words were less likely to request or offer help than participants who were shown neutral words. In other words, the evidence is simply: seeing money-related words -> less helping behavior. Nothing more was directly tested.

---

Step 2: What did they conclude?

The researchers did not conclude that seeing money-related words makes people less cooperative. Instead, they concluded that preoccupation with money makes people less cooperative. Notice that the conclusion introduces a new idea. The evidence tells us only that participants saw money-related words, whereas the conclusion assumes that those participants became preoccupied with money. These are not automatically the same thing.

---

Step 3: Why are these different?

Imagine someone briefly shows you the word "pizza." Does simply seeing the word mean you are now preoccupied with pizza? No. You only know that you saw the word. Likewise, seeing the word "salary" does not automatically mean someone became preoccupied with money. There is a missing step between seeing money-related words and actually thinking more about money.

---

Step 4: What is the hidden assumption?

The researchers are assuming that showing money-related words actually made the participants more preoccupied with money while solving the puzzles. Without that assumption, the experiment never manipulated "preoccupation with money." Instead, it only manipulated "seeing money-related words." If the money-word group was not actually more preoccupied with money than the neutral-word group, then the researchers cannot conclude that preoccupation with money reduces cooperation. At most, they could conclude that seeing certain words is associated with less helping behavior. That is why the argument requires the assumption that the money-word group was more preoccupied with money than the neutral-word group.

In an experiment, one group of volunteers was shown words associated

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In an experiment, one group of volunteers was shown words associated

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia