In an experiment, capuchin monkeys watched Person A refuse Person B's

Question

In an experiment, capuchin monkeys watched Person A refuse Person B's request to help open a jar of food. Afterward, each monkey could select which of the two people to accept food from. The monkeys accepted food less often from the unhelpful person, Person A, than from Person B. The researchers concluded that capuchin monkeys generally prefer to avoid unhelpful individuals.

In order to evaluate the support provided for the researchers' conclusion, it would be most helpful to know whether

A. capuchin monkeys, in a second, similar experiment, conducted for comparison, watched Person A being helpful to Person B

B. capuchin monkeys with more-helpful dispositions are more likely than those with less-helpful dispositions to offer food to and accept food from other capuchin monkeys

C. the researchers considered that the capuchin monkeys might not have understood whether Person A was refusing Person B's request

D. capuchin monkeys would accept food more often from Person B than from Person A in a similar experiment in which Person A and Person B did not interact

E. monkeys of some other species resemble capuchin monkeys in their responses to unhelpful individuals in similar experimental conditions

Show Spoiler

Why doesn't A work here?

Attachment:

CR - 2.png [ 88.87 KiB | Viewed 12725 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

D

Using official mocks already? Add GMAT Club Tests for harder practice, analytics, and explanations without overlapping Official Guide or official mock questions. Try it now →

Blackcrow1972 · Accepted Answer

Why A is not as strong as D:
While testing the opposite behavior (Person A being helpful) could provide additional insights, it does not directly address the core question of whether the monkeys' preference in the original experiment was specifically due to their perception of unhelpfulness. The conclusion is about avoiding unhelpful individuals, so A introduces a new variable (helpfulness) rather than isolating the original one (unhelpfulness).

A might show whether monkeys prefer helpful individuals, but it wouldn't clarify if the observed behavior in the original experiment was solely due to unhelpfulness or influenced by other factors, such as an inherent preference for Person B.

Why D is stronger:
D isolates the variable of the interaction. If the monkeys still prefer Person B in a scenario where no refusal occurred, it suggests the preference was unrelated to perceived helpfulness or unhelpfulness. This directly challenges or supports the conclusion.

While  A  introduces a complementary line of inquiry, it doesn’t directly evaluate the researchers’ conclusion.  D  is better because it tests the monkeys’ behavior under controlled conditions to confirm whether the avoidance of Person A is indeed due to perceived unhelpfulness.

While  C  raises a potentially valid concern about the monkeys’ comprehension of the situation, it does not  directly test the validity  of the researchers’ conclusion.  D  is more appropriate because it experimentally isolates the helpfulness/unhelpfulness variable and provides actionable evidence to confirm or refute the claim that capuchin monkeys avoid unhelpful individuals.

sachi-in · Answer

In an experiment, capuchin monkeys watched Person A refuse Person B's request to help open a jar of food. Afterward, each monkey could select which of the two people to accept food from. The monkeys accepted food less often from the unhelpful person, Person A, than from Person B. The researchers concluded that capuchin monkeys generally prefer to avoid unhelpful individuals.

Q1. Did the Capucin monkeys interpret A not helping B correctly ? 
Q2. Do the Capucin monkeys actually prefer helpful disposition ?  
Either an  Yes (would strengthen)  or  No (would weaken)  answer provided by the Options to either of the above Questions will help us evaluate this Premise.

In order to evaluate the support provided for the researchers' conclusion, it would be most helpful to know whether

A. capuchin monkeys, in a second, similar experiment, conducted for comparison, watched Person A being helpful to Person B
 Let's say the monkeys did watch A being helpful to B, but is this is not enough to provide an Yes or NO answer to the Q1 (see above). If the experiment also included the monkeys taking more food from either A or B, Only then we could have come to the conclusion.
But they were only watching A being helpful to B, We don't know if they received more food from A / B, it's not provided in the option. Hence it doesn't answer our question.

B. capuchin monkeys with more-helpful dispositions are more likely than those with less-helpful dispositions to offer food to and accept food from other capuchin monkeys
 Again it doesn't answer Q1 or Q2 since the interpretation is about receiving food from Monkeys ( whose actual disposition whether helpful or not isn't clear )

C. the researchers considered that the capuchin monkeys might not have understood whether Person A was refusing Person B's request
 The researchers considering whether the monkeys understood the interpretation correctly or incorrectly, does not necessarily prove the fact that the Monkeys themselves interpreted it correctly ! Only through experiment or evidence we can correlate that only through simple consideration !
 (maybe (Yes) the researches considered it but their consideration may be proven wrong later or maybe (No) they did not consider this and yet this interpretation would be proven true later on) Yes / NO answer to this doesn't give conclusive answers to the Q1

D. capuchin monkeys would accept food more often from Person B than from Person A in a similar experiment in which Person A and Person B did not interact
 This one definitely gives an evidence to provide an answer to our Q1. This should be the proper answer.
 S1 : If answer to this option is an YES it means Capucin monkeys simply like B better nothing to do with helpful disposition Q1. No ( Monkeys don't interpret it, they don't understand who is helpful or not ). 
 S2 : If the answer to this option No that means Q1 doesn't have a definite / conclusive answer.
But S1 is enough to weaken the scientist's conclusion.

E. monkeys of some other species resemble capuchin monkeys in their responses to unhelpful individuals in similar experimental conditions
 This again won't give an definite Yes or No ans to either Q1 or Q2 as it simply isn't about Capucin monkeys.

Request an Expert answer for this Question.
 mikemcgarry

JoeAa · Answer

Can anyone explain why A is incorrect?

A. capuchin monkeys, in a second, similar experiment, conducted for comparison, watched Person A being helpful to Person B

is it because it didn't state the consequence - whether the monkey will accept food more often from Person A than from Person B?

jyinvisiblech · Answer

I understand that D is correct. However, could anyone explain why C is not correct? If the capuchin monkeys do not understand that Person A was refusing Person B's request, they can't identify that Person A is unhelpful. Thus there might be other reasons that capuchin monkeys avoid A.

GMATNinja mikemcgarry KarishmaB please help!

GMATNinja   mikemcgarry   KarishmaB  please help!

gmatmartell · Answer

Hello I would also know to like why D is not correct. Thank you experts.

8Harshitsharma · Answer

Hi, if choice D had questioned whether capuchin monkeys understood that person A was being unhelpful to person B in the experiment, then this would have been a contender choice and what you are saying would have been correct. However, since the official option choice questions whether "the researchers" considered this "possibility", these choices are not the same.

Let's try the variance analysis on this:

Yes: the researchers  did  consider this  possibility  (since the word "might" is used in the answer choice, this behavior by capuchin monkeys is a possibility) - does it change the conclusion or increase our belief in the conclusion in any way? I don't think so because it is not substantive proof that capuchin monkeys really DID NOT understand the behavior - since the researchers might be wrong in their analysis or consideration etc.

Usage of the phrases such as capuchin monkeys "might" understand X and "researchers considered" Y raised an alarm in my head while reading this answer choice to really understand it before accepting or rejecting this choice.

Since the choice fails in the variance test because of not having a direct impact on the conclusion stated, it is incorrect.

Hope this helps

GMATNinja · Answer

The question asks us to evaluate the support provided in the argument. This means that our task is to look at each option and ask, "if I knew whether this thing occurred, would that give me insight into the strength of the support in the argument?"

Starting with (D):
 
It would be incredibly helpful to know whether this would happen. If the monkeys DID accept more food from Person B even  without  the unhelpful interaction, it really blows a hole in the argument. Maybe the monkeys' decisions had nothing to do with Person A being unhelpful -- maybe they just didn't like that person for whatever reason.

Compare that to (C):
 
Let's say that we find out that this DID happen -- the researchers DID consider that the monkeys might not understand the interaction. Well... what did the researchers conclude? Did the monkeys understand, or not? We would need this  additional  information in order for the issue raised in (C) to actually be helpful. So, just knowing the info in (C) itself isn't enough to help us evaluate the strength of the support in the argument.

That's why (C) is out, and (D) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

Dbrunik · Answer

simple TDLR is just that D presents another variable that would explain the monkey preference.

Aboyhasnoname · Answer

Hello,

In this...
If we consider Option C.. 
Yes, researchers considered the understanding of the monkey and then concluded that they don't prefer unhelpful people. 
No, researchers did not consider the understanding of the monkey and the concluded that they don't prefer unhelpful people...

aren't the two statements, Helping us regarding some other factors that might be responsible for their behaviour?

GMATNinja · Answer

It would absolutely be helpful to know whether the monkeys did or did not understand what was happening between the two people. But the answer to that question does NOT depend on whether the researchers did or did not consider that question. For example, maybe the monkeys perfectly understood the situation even though the researchers failed to consider the possibility described in (C). Conversely, maybe the researchers did consider the possibility described in (C), but the monkeys still had no idea what was going on between the two people. As far as we know, the monkeys' behavior was not impacted by what the researchers did or did not consider. In other words, without additional information, knowing whether (C) happened does not tell us whether the monkeys actually understood the situation. That's why (D) is a better option. For more on (C) vs (D), check out this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-an-experi ... l#p3379136.

In an experiment, capuchin monkeys watched Person A refuse Person B's

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

In an experiment, capuchin monkeys watched Person A refuse Person B's

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