Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
02 Sep 2020, 20:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
59% (02:18) correct
41%
(02:23)
wrong
based on 837
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In a recent study, participants were asked to consider three hypothetical treatments for a deadly disease infecting 8,000 individuals. Treatment A would save 6,000 individuals, but the rest would die. Treatment B would offer a 75% chance of saving all of the infected individuals, but a 25% chance of saving none. Treatment C would kill 2,000 individuals, but the rest would live. Participants strongly preferred Treatment A over Treatment B and both Treatment A and Treatment B over Treatment C.
The above study results most strongly support which of the following conclusions?
A. Study participants consistently favored those treatments that offered certainty over those that created uncertainty.
B. Most or all study participants favored those treatments that saved the greatest number of lives.
C. Some or all of the study participants were confused by the experimenters’ instructions.
D. Participants would have strongly disfavored a hypothetical Treatment D that offered a 25% chance that all of the infected individuals would die but a 75% chance that none of the infected individuals would die.
E. The effectiveness of a treatment and its likelihood of success were not the only factors that affected which treatments were favored by study participants.
The above study results most strongly support which of the following conclusions?
A. Study participants consistently favored those treatments that offered certainty over those that created uncertainty.
B. Most or all study participants favored those treatments that saved the greatest number of lives.
C. Some or all of the study participants were confused by the experimenters’ instructions.
D. Participants would have strongly disfavored a hypothetical Treatment D that offered a 25% chance that all of the infected individuals would die but a 75% chance that none of the infected individuals would die.
E. The effectiveness of a treatment and its likelihood of success were not the only factors that affected which treatments were favored by study participants.
|
03 Sep 2020, 20:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Quote:
Veritas Prep Explanation
The correct answer is E.
Note that Treatments A and C are, in fact, quite identical in their effects – though those effects are expressed a bit differently. Each of these two treatments results in 6,000 individuals living and 2,000 individuals dying. So any preference that study participants expressed between the two treatments could not be based only on the effectiveness of those treatments. Whatever else the participants may have considered – perhaps the disparate framing of the statements had its own impact – it is fair to conclude that Answer E must be true.
Answer A is incorrect because in fact the two treatments with the most certainty, Treatment A and Treatment C, received opposite preferences from the study participants. Treatment A was most favored, whereas Treatment C was least favored. The treatment that generated more uncertainty, Treatment B, received the middle preference.
Alternatively, if the “uncertainty” is understood as a question of which people would die, then Treatments A and C generate more uncertainty but again are placed at opposite ends of the preference spectrum. Either way, avoidance of uncertainty does not seem to explain these results.
Answer B again fails to appreciate that Treatments A and C save the same number of lives, and, in fact, Treatment B, on average, saves the exact same number of lives as well. Though it is almost certainly true in real life, there is no basis within this argument to conclude that study participants favored saving more lives.
Answer C is plausible, since study participants treated functionally identical treatments – Treatment A and Treatment C – so differently, but this explanation is not certain. Perhaps the instructions did not confuse participants but the treatment descriptions did. Perhaps participants fully understood the treatment descriptions but were biased by the way in which those descriptions were framed. Answer C is not a “must be true” answer and is not, therefore, a correct inference.
Answer D speculates about a new treatment that the study simply gives us no basis to evaluate with certainty. In fact, a close reading reveals that Treatment D is logically identical to Treatment B. Perhaps its different framing would produce a different preference, or perhaps not. If it did produce a different preference, perhaps that preference would be higher or perhaps it would be lower. Certainty is rarely forthcoming on a hypothetical such as this, and we may conclude, for this reason, that Answer D is incorrect.
General Discussion
03 Sep 2020, 01:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
Stimulus: participants were offered three hypothetical treatments with identical effectiveness and likelihood of success. However, despite such similarity, some of them were preferred to others.
Possible inference: it seems like the effectiveness and the likelihood of success are not the only criteria by which treatments were judged. Otherwise, with the same level of positive outcome, all three would be approved to the same extent. It can be a case that participants attention was drawn to the information presented first. If positive information is presented first, then their emotions may favour from the most positive to the least positive. The mere mention of death may repel participants. Surely, there can be other reasons and factors that impacted their choice.
With this in mind let’s analyze answer choices:
A. Study participants consistently favored those treatments that offered certainty over those that created uncertainty.
The first thing that drew my attention is “consistently” at which nothing in the stimulus hints. Such “strong” words should be scrutinized first.
Next, all three treatments had similar descriptions presented in different ways. I don't think any of them was uncertain. Let’s say, even if participants thought that the information given in percentages was not as easily comprehensible as that given in numbers, still percentages present a certain information because the stimulus doesn’t say “about” or “approximately” or “perhaps” 75%. Rather, it directly says that 75% would be saved. So no uncertainty here. Moreover, participants still chose B over C, so uncertainty is non-issue.
B. Most or all study participants favored those treatments that saved the greatest number of lives.
An alluring trap: all three proposed treatments have the same success rate. All save 75% of 8000 people. So, this choice is not about the stimulus given above. Thus, out.
C. Some or all of the study participants were confused by the experimenters’ instructions.
Probably, the easiest choice to remove: nothing in the stimulus indicates that the result of the experiment was due to some sort of confusion. Sure, this can be a case, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a case. Participants may have chosen A > B > C on the basis of other factors, such as those mentioned before moving to the analysis of choices.
D. Participants would have strongly disfavored a hypothetical Treatment D that offered a 25% chance that all of the infected individuals would die but a 75% chance that none of the infected individuals would die.
The stimulus says “strongly preferred” that is not the same thing is “strongly disfavored”.
For example we may like chocolate, banana, and cake. We may like chocolate more than banana, and like banana more than cake. However, this doesn’t mean that we dislike cake. We surely like cake but not as much as we like chocolate and banana.
So, saying “strongly disfavor” is not the inference we can make”.
E. The effectiveness of a treatment and its likelihood of success were not the only factors that affected which treatments were favored by study participants.
As we have already presupposed above, participants may have judged treatments not only by a success rate. Otherwise, with the same level of positive outcome, all three would be approved to the same extent. It can be a case that participants attention was drawn to the information presented first. If positive information is presented first, then their emotions may favour from the most positive to the least positive. The mere mention of death may repel participants. Surely, there can be other reasons and factors that impacted their choice.
Hence E
Posted from my mobile device
Possible inference: it seems like the effectiveness and the likelihood of success are not the only criteria by which treatments were judged. Otherwise, with the same level of positive outcome, all three would be approved to the same extent. It can be a case that participants attention was drawn to the information presented first. If positive information is presented first, then their emotions may favour from the most positive to the least positive. The mere mention of death may repel participants. Surely, there can be other reasons and factors that impacted their choice.
With this in mind let’s analyze answer choices:
A. Study participants consistently favored those treatments that offered certainty over those that created uncertainty.
The first thing that drew my attention is “consistently” at which nothing in the stimulus hints. Such “strong” words should be scrutinized first.
Next, all three treatments had similar descriptions presented in different ways. I don't think any of them was uncertain. Let’s say, even if participants thought that the information given in percentages was not as easily comprehensible as that given in numbers, still percentages present a certain information because the stimulus doesn’t say “about” or “approximately” or “perhaps” 75%. Rather, it directly says that 75% would be saved. So no uncertainty here. Moreover, participants still chose B over C, so uncertainty is non-issue.
B. Most or all study participants favored those treatments that saved the greatest number of lives.
An alluring trap: all three proposed treatments have the same success rate. All save 75% of 8000 people. So, this choice is not about the stimulus given above. Thus, out.
C. Some or all of the study participants were confused by the experimenters’ instructions.
Probably, the easiest choice to remove: nothing in the stimulus indicates that the result of the experiment was due to some sort of confusion. Sure, this can be a case, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a case. Participants may have chosen A > B > C on the basis of other factors, such as those mentioned before moving to the analysis of choices.
D. Participants would have strongly disfavored a hypothetical Treatment D that offered a 25% chance that all of the infected individuals would die but a 75% chance that none of the infected individuals would die.
The stimulus says “strongly preferred” that is not the same thing is “strongly disfavored”.
For example we may like chocolate, banana, and cake. We may like chocolate more than banana, and like banana more than cake. However, this doesn’t mean that we dislike cake. We surely like cake but not as much as we like chocolate and banana.
So, saying “strongly disfavor” is not the inference we can make”.
E. The effectiveness of a treatment and its likelihood of success were not the only factors that affected which treatments were favored by study participants.
As we have already presupposed above, participants may have judged treatments not only by a success rate. Otherwise, with the same level of positive outcome, all three would be approved to the same extent. It can be a case that participants attention was drawn to the information presented first. If positive information is presented first, then their emotions may favour from the most positive to the least positive. The mere mention of death may repel participants. Surely, there can be other reasons and factors that impacted their choice.
Hence E
Posted from my mobile device
