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.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
29 Mar 2025, 09:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
45% (02:18) correct
55%
(02:40)
wrong
based on 208
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Psychologist: Negotiators who lie regularly to cover up mistakes or to form new business alliances know that "truth adherence"—the closeness with which a story aligns to the known facts—is more likely to win a listener's trust than a completely unfamiliar story with corroboration from others. Clearly, people are more willing to trust a story that feels familiar but has a few inconsistencies than a story that is entirely new but completely verifiable. Which of the following most seriously calls into question the psychologist's conclusion?
(A) Negotiators who are regular liars are only slightly more likely than others to use stories that have "truth adherence" to form new business alliances.
(B) Although an entirely false story would immediately put the listener on guard, negotiators who are regular liars would never use such a tactic.
(C) Most people who negotiate do lie once in a while, but only a very few do so regularly.
(D) People tend not to become negotiators unless they already have a tendency to lie on a regular basis.
(E) People are more likely to trust a negotiator if they have been referred by friends in common or trusted business acquaintances.
(A) Negotiators who are regular liars are only slightly more likely than others to use stories that have "truth adherence" to form new business alliances.
(B) Although an entirely false story would immediately put the listener on guard, negotiators who are regular liars would never use such a tactic.
(C) Most people who negotiate do lie once in a while, but only a very few do so regularly.
(D) People tend not to become negotiators unless they already have a tendency to lie on a regular basis.
(E) People are more likely to trust a negotiator if they have been referred by friends in common or trusted business acquaintances.
31 Mar 2025, 19:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi. Can someone help me with this?!!
What I'm thinking: The conclusion is based on the premise that negotiators who lie regularly know that truth adherence is more likely to win a listener's trust. However, option A tells us that negotiators who are regular liars are only slightly more likely to use stories with truth adherence than others. This weakens the claim that listeners are more willing to trust such stories, because otherwise, negotiators would have used it more. On the other hand, option E focuses on the influence of referrals rather than the strategy of using "truth adherence" or telling stories.
What I'm thinking: The conclusion is based on the premise that negotiators who lie regularly know that truth adherence is more likely to win a listener's trust. However, option A tells us that negotiators who are regular liars are only slightly more likely to use stories with truth adherence than others. This weakens the claim that listeners are more willing to trust such stories, because otherwise, negotiators would have used it more. On the other hand, option E focuses on the influence of referrals rather than the strategy of using "truth adherence" or telling stories.
01 Apr 2025, 03:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
The conclusion of the argument basically states that:
Familiarity of the Story is positively correlated Willingness to Trust.
So in order to weaken the conclusion, we might the following scenarios, among many:
1. Familiarity of the Story is negatively correlated Willingness to Trust.
2. Familiarity of the Story is not correlated Willingness to Trust.
3. There are factors other than Familiarity of the Story which affect Willingness to Trust.
Option E states that:
Reference from family/friends leads to increased Willingness to Trust. This is in alignment with point 3 above.
It is also the official explanation.
Familiarity of the Story is positively correlated Willingness to Trust.
So in order to weaken the conclusion, we might the following scenarios, among many:
1. Familiarity of the Story is negatively correlated Willingness to Trust.
2. Familiarity of the Story is not correlated Willingness to Trust.
3. There are factors other than Familiarity of the Story which affect Willingness to Trust.
Option E states that:
Reference from family/friends leads to increased Willingness to Trust. This is in alignment with point 3 above.
It is also the official explanation.
dchandravanshi
