Psychologists conducted an experiment in which half of the volunteers

Question

Psychologists conducted an experiment in which half of the volunteers were asked to describe an unethical action they had performed, while the other half were asked to describe an ethical action they had performed. Some of the volunteers, chosen at random from each of the two groups, were encouraged to wash their hands afterward. Among those who described unethical actions, those who washed their hands were significantly less likely to volunteer for another, similar experiment than those who did not wash their hands. The researchers concluded that some of the subjects failed to volunteer again in part because of their having described an unethical action.

Which of the following would, if true, most help to support the researchers' conclusion?

(A) Among the volunteers who described ethical actions, those who washed their hands were significantly less likely to volunteer for another, similar experiment than those who did not wash their hands.

(B) The average likelihood of volunteering for another, similar experiment was higher among those who described ethical actions than among those who described unethical actions.

(C) Most of the volunteers who were encouraged to wash their hands did so.

(D) The volunteers in the study were not more disposed to washing their hands under normal circumstances than the general population was.

(E) Equal numbers of volunteers from both groups were encouraged to wash their hands.

ID: 500112
CR91131.02

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Researchers found that some participants in the first experiment were more likely to volunteer for a second experiment.

What led to that finding?
   ”Half of the volunteers were asked to describe an unethical action they had performed” 
 ”The other half were asked to describe an ethical action they had performed.” 
 Thus, in the researcher’s opinion, ”SOME of the subjects failed to volunteer again IN PART because of their having described an unethical action.”

In other words, the researchers determine that  one of the factors influencing volunteers’ decision to volunteer again was ethical vs. unethical storytelling .

But what does the evidence say?
  Some volunteers washed their hands after the experiment while others did not. 
 Those who described unethical actions and washed their hands were less likely to volunteer again than those who did not wash their hands.

The evidence actually suggests a possible correlation between  hand-washing  and choosing to volunteer again, but the researchers do NOT address that correlation.

Now, the question becomes how we can support the conclusion that the primary issue is the ethical/unethical storytelling, NOT the hand-washing.

So, we’re looking for an answer choice that can both disentangle these two variables (hand-washing and ethical/unethical storytelling) and support the idea that describing an unethical action discouraged volunteers from volunteering again.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at the answer choices:

If (A) is true, then the likelihood volunteers choose to volunteer again appears to depend, in part, on whether they washed their hands. But even then, the researchers conclusion is about the impact of describing an unethical action, not washing hands. Eliminate (A).

(B) is interesting. If the likelihood of volunteering again is higher among those who described ethical actions than those who described unethical actions, then it seems to be true that the type of action described by a volunteer has an impact on his/her choice to volunteer again. Moreover, (B) removes the second variable, hand-washing, that would otherwise influence the decision to volunteer again. So, (B) both eliminates a possible alternative explanation for the decision to volunteer again and provides support for the researchers’ explanation of the decision to volunteer again. Let’s keep (B).

The researchers’ conclusion focuses on the impact of describing an unethical action on choosing to volunteer again. Relatively little support is given for that conclusion, but even that support is not related to the choices of volunteers that washed or did not wash their hands. For that reason, (C) is irrelevant, and we can eliminate it.

Again, despite the large quantity of information given in the passage about volunteers washing their hands, that information has little to do with the researchers’ conclusion. Eliminate (D).

While equal numbers of volunteers may have been encouraged to wash their hands, this does nothing to support the researchers’ conclusion that describing an unethical action had an impact on volunteers’ decision to volunteer again. Eliminate (E).

In this instance, many of the answer choices described possibilities that had no direct connection to the researchers’ conclusion. For that reason, we could eliminate those choices, and (B) is correct.

I hope that helps!

KarishmaB · Answer

This is a good question but not difficult because the elimination of options is straight forward. If we get lost in the options, it is because we lose our focus while reading them. Time should be invested in reading the argument. Then you will sail through the options.

In an experiment, people were split into 2 grps:
Grp1 - Describe an unethical action
Grp2 - Describe an ethical action

Some of each grp were encouraged to wash hands. Some washed, some didn't. 
Then they were asked whether they would volunteer for another similar experiment.

Observation: Among those who described unethical actions, those who washed their hands were significantly less likely to volunteer for another, similar experiment than those who did not wash their hands.

(So we don't know anything about what was observed in Grp2. What we know is that of Grp1, people who washed hands did not want to volunteer in another such experiment. What does this tell us? That people who described unethical actions and then washed hands perhaps wanted to wash out the guilt and did not want to relive such an experience again. Those who did not wash hands perhaps felt no guilt anyway and did not care if they were asked to recount another unethical action - all this is a conjecture though)

Conclusion: Some of the subjects failed to volunteer again in part because of their having described an unethical action.

The conclusion says that some subjects did not want to volunteer again because they described an unethical action. This would be stronger if we knew that those who described ethical actions were ok with volunteering again. 
The conclusion doesn't say anything about washing hands. The conclusion concludes abt people of Grp1 not wanting to volunteer again. We would like to know how people of Grp2 acted vs how people of Grp1 acted to say whether our conclusion has some merit. So our correct option will likely give us a distinction between the actions of the two grps.

A) Among the volunteers who described ethical actions, those who washed their hands were significantly less likely to volunteer for another, similar experiment than those who did not wash their hands.

This hints at "washing hands" having a connection with the readiness to volunteer again, and not the type of action described. If this were true, in both grps people who washed hands did not want to volunteer again. So looks like those who washed hands did not want to volunteer again, irrespective of what they were asked to do. This does not strengthen our conclusion. We need to link the "kind of action" with "volunteering again".

B) The average likelihood of volunteering for another, similar experiment was higher among those who described ethical actions than among those who described unethical actions.

This helps us link volunteering with the kind of action (as suggested in the conclusion). In Grp2, more people were ready to volunteer again. So it does seem that fewer hand washing people of Grp1 volunteered again because they were asked to describe an unethical action. This strengthens our conclusion.

C) Most of the volunteers who were encouraged to wash their hands did so.

This is irrelevant. It doesn't give us a distinction between Grp1 and Grp2 so we cannot conclude something specific about Grp1.

D) The volunteers in the study were not more disposed to washing their hands under normal circumstances than the general population was.

Again irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether our experiment volunteers are different from the population. We need to know how Grp1 acted differently from Grp2. In any case, this tells us that there was no sampling bias in our experiment. 
 warrior1991  - Note that hand washing is not a deciding factor. It is a response much like the response of "agreeing to volunteer or not". The deciding factor can only be whether they were asked to recount an ethical action or unethical action. Whether they washed hands and whether they agreed to volunteer again are both just responses to what they were asked to do. The cause is "recount an action" and the effect is whether they washed hands and whether they volunteered again. The conclusion does not talk about hand washing having an impact on volunteering again. It only talks about impact of what kind of action they were asked to recount on volunteering again. 
Besides, we don't know how many people were asked to wash hands and how many actually did in either group. We also don't know whether more people from Grp1 or Grp2 washed hands. This gives us no distinction about the two groups.

E) Equal numbers of volunteers from both groups were encouraged to wash their hands.

Again, doesn't give us a distinction between the two groups.

Answer (B)

NiftyNiffler · Answer

Psychologists conducted an experiment in which half of the volunteers were asked to describe an unethical action they had performed, while the other half were asked to describe an ethical action they had performed. Some of the volunteers, chosen at random from each of the two groups, were encouraged to wash their hands afterward. Among those who described unethical actions, those who washed their hands were significantly less likely to volunteer for another, similar experiment than those who did not wash their hands. The researchers concluded that some of the subjects failed to volunteer again in part because of their having described an unethical action.

Which of the following would, if true, most help to support the researchers' conclusion?

Pre-thinking: We have seen the behavior of people describing unethical actions; we need to gather information on the behavior of people describing ethical behavior to make an informed judgement.

A) Among the volunteers who described ethical actions, those who washed their hands were significantly less likely to volunteer for another, similar experiment than those who did not wash their hands.  -- Weakener. If people who described ethical behavior also behaved the same way as volunteers who described unethical action, then we can't call out only the latter group

B) The average likelihood of volunteering for another, similar experiment was higher among those who described ethical actions than among those who described unethical actions.  -- CORRECT, this tells the volunteers' side of the story who described ethical action and how they are more likely to volunteer, establishing a strong connection between describing unethical\ethical action and volunteering and closing the assumption gap.

C) Most of the volunteers who were encouraged to wash their hands did so.  -- Doesn't connect to the underlying conclusion properly
 
D) The volunteers in the study were not more disposed to washing their hands under normal circumstances than the general population was.  -- Out-of-scope. As long as both groups exhibited similar hand washing behavior, we are good
 
E) Equal numbers of volunteers from both groups were encouraged to wash their hands.  -- Proportions of people are important. Exact numbers don't matter.

So, answer is  B

szubham · Answer

3 points before I come to my point

Because the standard of problems from official sources is very high, and those are the problems that we will solve on the exam, the importance of using official sources for practicing can't be stated enough.

Ron Purewal also said that there is nothing tricky about CR. GMAC tries to test logic and comprehension, and when you see the right answer you can vividly see how wrong all other choices are (maybe it is wrong to assume that and I'd be happy to know right answer but I do believe that so far).

Lastly, whenever I spend time on a problem and don't get it correct and the solution also doesn't convince me, I go and check the source of the problem. The case has been that on at least 5 different occasions the problem was from Official GMAT Verbal Review, and on zero occasions from OG.

Questions and the aim behind it -
I did not get the correct answer for this question, but before I spend time on learning how to get on top of these kind of questions, I really want to know if these questions are representative of questions from OG. Has anybody seen a question with information (like washing hands here) that is present just to make it tricky for test takers to find the answer? Does GMAC really check the standards of these problems?

Thanks

GMATNinja · Answer

Questions published in Official Guide and Verbal Review books are real GMAT test questions that have been retired from the official test bank. All of them are carefully written and extensively vetted before entering the test bank, at great cost to GMAC. Back in the day, it reportedly cost  $3000  for a single question to be developed, and that figure is almost certainly higher now. There is no difference in quality between questions that appear in the Official Guide and questions that appear in the Verbal Review.

And while it's true that CR questions aren't written to trick you, they can still be really, really hard. So, it's best to go into the test knowing that you might get stumped on a particular question -- be ready to guess and move on so that you don't get bogged down and have to rush through the rest of your test.

This particular question is dense, but the information available is enough to eliminate four answer choices and select the correct answer. Whether it's worth your time on the test is another matter. It might be the best decision to let this one go and spend your time on other questions in your verbal section.

Finally, we find it best to develop a simple, elegant approach to CR in general, rather than attempting to master individual question or passage types. The GMAT throws questions at you that don't necessarily fit into a clean category, and forcing a passage into an ill-fitting box can lead to misreading the information on the page. You can read more about this approach  here .

I hope that helps a bit!

Maldonado · Answer

When I attempted this question, I was stucked on option B because I thought that the word "WAS" is giving us a "BEFORE THE TEST (in other words, the ethical group is not a good representative sample)" meaning.

And I chose option C because I thought "what if among encouraged people only 1 actually washed his hand???" So that I thought option C "strengthen the the conclusion by eliminating a possible attack" (I mean it helps us to say that the sample used to arrive to the conclusion is REPRESENTATIVE)...

What is wrong with my logic here?

Thx

GMATNinja · Answer

The instance in which volunteers were asked to volunteer for another, similar experiment is described in the past tense in the passage. So, it’s logical for (B) to describe the same instance in the past tense as well.

(C) does not tell us that the sample used to reach the conclusion is representative. It’s still possible that the number of volunteers for the experiment was far too small to be representative. Also, the passage only tells us that  some  of the volunteers were encouraged to wash their hands. Even if most of those encouraged to wash their hands did so, it’s possible that very few were actually encouraged to wash their hands.

So (C) simply does not give us enough information to support the researchers’ conclusion. For that reason, we can eliminate (C).

I hope that helps!

Niha01 · Answer

GMATNinja  I was thrown off by the 'IN PART' in the conclusion. So to strengthen that this is infact only partly the reason, I tried to find the answer choice which would patch in washing hands as the other half of the reason. Could you please help me clear my head around this.

GMATNinja · Answer

You're right that the researchers conclude that some subjects failed to volunteer again IN PART because of telling an unethical story. However, that doesn't mean that the other "part" of the reason must be hand-washing.

There are a million other reasons why someone might not volunteer again -- maybe they are busy, or maybe they hated the experience, or really anything else.

The researchers don't care about this other reason. Instead, they argue that telling an unethical story IS part of the picture. To answer the question accurately, we need to support that  exact  argument as it is written on the page. So, we should focus on why telling an unethical story DOES partially explain why people didn't volunteer again.

Check out  this  post for a rundown of each answer choice.

I hope that helps!

Niha01 · Answer

GMATNinja  Thank you! I understand now and totally agree with you that we should support the argument as it is. But, for the sake of understanding the whole argument and drawing some pointers here, could you please address this- how can we say that hand washing most definitely is not the other part, since it is provided as an evidence in the argument. Aren't we suppose to believe the evidence provided in the argument as is and not bring in the outside knowledge/assumptions.

GMATNinja · Answer

The other "part" absolutely  could  be handwashing! But the researchers simply do not care about that other part. The argument focuses on why telling an unethical story IS partly to blame, so to answer the question, we need to support that conclusion.

There's no need to bring in outside information here -- the conclusion is about unethical storytelling, so support that conclusion. The other piece is just a distraction from the thing that the researchers really care about.

I hope that helps!

warrior1991 · Answer

VeritasKarishma   AndrewN

This option says that volunteers in the study were NOT more disposed to washing their hands than the general population was.If this is the case, hand washing is not the deciding factor and hence it is only the unethical action.

This option removes any alternate possibility. So this can be correct too. What is your take ??

Basshead · Answer

In these Critical Reasoning questions with two groups of people or two variables, the best way to attack or strengthen an argument is to find an answer that:

-  pertains to one group  
or 
-  differentiates one group from the other

Choices C, D, and E all give us information that pertain to both of the groups. How can we evaluate the conclusion using information that pertains to both groups? We can't.

A talks about one group, but it's not the group that the conclusion is talking about. B differentiates on group from the other.

B is the answer.

100mitra · Answer

Correct option : B

Psychologists conducted an experiment in which 
- half of the volunteers were asked to describe an  (unethical action)  they had performed, 
- half of the volunteers were asked to describe an  (ethical action)  they had performed. 
Some of the volunteers, chosen at random from each of the two groups 
 (were encouraged to wash their hands afterward) 
Among
- those who described ( unethical actions ) 
- those who ( washed their hands ) were significantly less likely to volunteer for another, 
similar experiment than 
- those who ( did not wash their hands ) 
The researchers concluded that
Conclusion: some of the  subjects failed to volunteer again  in part because of their  having described an unethical action .

Which of the following would, if true,  most help to support the researchers' conclusion ?

A) Among the volunteers who described ethical actions, 
 those who washed their hands  were significantly  less likely to volunteer  for another, 
similar experiment than 
 those who did not wash their hands .
 Wrong:  this gives more detail about subject who washed their hand and who has not washed their hand, which doesn’t support the conclusion that subjects failed to participate again just because they were called as ethical and non-ethical group.

B) The average likelihood of volunteering for another, 
similar experiment was higher among
-  those who described ethical actions than among  
-  those who described unethical actions .
 Correct:  this stem compares correct with ethical and non-ethical group and their participations drop

C) Most of the volunteers who were encouraged to wash their hands did so.
 Wrong:  Irrelevant to the passage and conclusion, to be more prescribe ethical and non ethical, who washed their hand and not, gives information about encouragement, not about drop in participation

D) The volunteers in the study were not more disposed to washing their hands under normal circumstances than the general population was.
 Wrong:  Irrelevant to the passage and conclusion, to be more prescribe ethical and non-ethical, who washed their hand and not

E) Equal numbers of volunteers from both groups were encouraged to wash their hands.
 Wrong:  Irrelevant to the passage and conclusion, to be more prescribe ethical and non-ethical, who washed their hand and not

annevu197 · Answer

Among those who described unethical actions, those who washed their hands were significantly less likely to volunteer for another, similar experiment than those who did not wash their hands. The researchers concluded that some of the subjects failed to volunteer again in part because of their having described an unethical action.

Conclusion is formed based on the result of the correlation of " being unethical & washing hand" vs "less like to volunteer". Answer choice should support this correlation or the reverse (being ethical & not washing hand vs more likely to volunteer) should support the conclusion. 
Hence, B is the answer.

B) The average likelihood of volunteering for another, similar experiment was higher among those who described ethical actions than among those who described unethical actions.

Vegita · Answer

KarishmaB

I had a similar query regarding option D.

"...those who washed their hands were significantly less likely to volunteer for another, similar experiment than those who did not wash their hands...."

The sentence above from the passage speaks about the  correlation  between  handwashing  and  being significantly less likely to volunteer , and not causation. Even if option D were true then it would be strengthening this correlation but we are looking to strengthen the causation between describing unethical action and failing to volunteer again.

KarishmaB · Answer

Look, an argument can give you links between various variables. We may or may not use them all in our conclusion. When we evaluate the conclusion, we focus on the relation between the variables relevant to the conclusion.

Conclusion: Some of the subjects failed to volunteer again in part because of their having described an unethical action.

There is no mention of washing hands and how those subjects responded. Distinction is being made between those who related ethical actions vs those who related unethical actions. The conclusion makes no distinction between hand washers vs non hand washers. Any way in which we try to related hand washers with the kind of action they described will be a conjecture on our part since we are not given anything.

Option (B) links ethical/unethical action to participating again. These are the two variables we were trying to connect in our conclusion. This does help strengthen our conclusion.

Option (D) links hand washing of all volunteers with hand washing of general public. It doesn't matter either way. Our conclusion compares ethical action people with unethical action people so an information which is common for both groups will not be useful to us. 
Hence option (D) is irrelevant.

Prakruti_Patil · Answer

I'm finding it very difficult to understand how the hand-washing is not a factor in the researchers' conclusion .. please help understand this better

GMATNinja · Answer

We attempted to explain each of the answer choices in this post:  https://gmatclub.com/forum/psychologists-conducted-an-experiment-in-which-half-of-the-volunteers-321877.html#p2538247

Check it out (and maybe also check out our follow-up posts later in the thread), and let us know if you still have questions.

Psychologists conducted an experiment in which half of the volunteers

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

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Psychologists conducted an experiment in which half of the volunteers

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

My Rewards