Behavioral studies of young chimpanzees and young humans reveal hardly

Question

Behavioral studies of young chimpanzees and young humans reveal hardly any difference between their psychological capacities. The most reasonable explanation for these results is the inadequacy of the studies.

An unstated premise of the above argument is that:

A) Psychological capacities cannot be assessed objectively.

B) Biased researchers frequently misinterpret the results of their studies.

C) Young humans and chimps have underdeveloped psychological capacities.

D) The psychological capacities of babies and young chimps differ significantly.

E) Examining the central nervous system is a better way to assess psychological capacity than to study behavior.

intr3pid · Answer

If babies = young humans, then D is the answer.

Paul · Answer

Is it that straightforward? I may be misunderstanding this question but it seems to be asking for an assumption, not an inference as hinted by D. D is directly stated by the first sentence but is not an assumption. A is the answer IMO.

Argument: chimps = young humans, as proved by studies --> studies must be inadequate. Why? This is where assumption comes into play: The author is assuming that psychological cannot be assessed objectively. If the assumption is negated and that psychological faculties CAN be assessed, then there is no reason for the author to say that the studies is inadequate in the first place and the argument falls apart.

hardworker_indian · Answer

I too got A and was amazed to see the support for D; I thought I was totally wrong.

In addition to Paul's explanation, the words "most reasonable explanation" also hint the author's assumption that objective study is not possible.

Btw, just to understand, doesn't D contradict the stem? Stem says "reveal hardly any difference"; D says "differ significantly".

bigtooth81 · Answer

I don't think D is stated by the first sentence

"Behavioral studies of young chimpanzees and young humans reveal hardly any difference between their psychological capacities"

It is a premise and I think D another one.

srijay007 · Answer

Folks The OA is D ... I also selected A I am still not getting a hang of why D is correct

Anyways here's the explanation provided from source The unstated premise here refers to a belief which is not specified, but which is basic to the conclusions. Look over the alternatives carefully and see which of these statements must be assumed to be true in order to reach the conclusion. (A) does not account for the conclusion, and in fact, there is evidence for the opposite assumption (what does this mean?). The fact that the researchers are relying on behavioral studies indicates that they think these differences can be measured. The critics must think so also for their criticism to make sense. (D) The reason that an explanation of the results is sought indicates that the writer thinks there is a significant difference between chimps and humans, and therefore, the finding of no significant difference must be somehow explained. This is the best alternative. (E) This is obviously an incorrect alternative. The writers chose to use behavioral methods.

Paul · Answer

I see the point for D and I agree it could be the answer. However, there is an extremely weak job at refuting A

Quote:

The fact that the researchers are relying on behavioral studies indicates that they think these differences can be measured

This is totally not true. The critics could very well conclude that the studies were inadequate because those differences cannot be measured. The given explanation basically says that because researchers conducted the studies, the differences must be measurable: This is totally wrong. What is the source of this question? I'm about to throw in an ad hominem here

prep_gmat · Answer

D.

Establishes the reason why the author could logically come to the conclusion that the studies are inadequate.

A is incorrect as if adequate studies were conducted the assessment can be objective. B, nothing about bias in the stem. C, not true based on the stem. E, out of scope.

skorada · Answer

Hi,

Newbie here. I will try to answer this.

The passage says(in my words) :
 A study reveals that the difference in the psychological capacities between chimps and human babies are almost zero. But the results of the study are incorrect and not complete

Conclusion:
 The results of the studies are inadequate

Pre-think:
What does this mean ? The results are incorrect or maybe there is more that can be researched and arrived at a completely different result

Options
A) Psychological capacities cannot be assessed objectively.
This is a very close one IMO
Lets say you didnt pre-think the assumption, so lets try to negate this
Negation: Psychological capacities(PC) CAN be assessed objectively. --> Does this break the conclusion ? No
If PC can be assessed then the results of the study are adequate and correct so it doesnt break down the conclusion

D) The psychological capacities of babies and young chimps differ significantly.
This is in-line with the pre-thinking assumption.
Negate: the PC of babies and chimps do NOT differ significantly. In that case the conclusion breaks down.

Hope this helps.

prabsahi · Answer

Perfect.

Just adding up.
 option A really uses a strong word CANNOT.Its a red flag

skorada · Answer

Aah thanks Prabsahi. I need to get better at spotting those redflags

DharLog · Answer

explanation for these results is the inadequacy of the studies - this statement is so categorical, that it means the unstated premise has to be Counter of it.
D is the only one such option

Rakeshtewatia · Answer

Experts please help, i can't find any of the explanation reasonable to the answer. please comment why the answer is D .

XyLan · Answer

Premise:    
Behavioral studies of young chimpanzees and young humans reveal hardly  ANY  difference between their psychological capacities. 
 Meaning : There is  NO  difference between their psychological capacities.

Conclusion:   
 The most reasonable explanation for these results is the  inadequacy  of the studies.

Argument-structure:  
 Since Studies says  NO   difference  in PC( psychological capacities ) --------> Studies  ARE  inadequate   - Read this SLOWLY again

Pre-Think:  
 The author is  NOT  agreeing with the results of the study. He is  doubting  the  results  of the study.
The author assumes that PC( psychological capacities )  MUST  be having some  difference , otherwise, why would the author  NEED  to call the  results  of the study as INADEQUATE.

Answer choice analysis:  
 
A) Psychological capacities cannot be assessed objectively. 
It states we CANNOT measure the PC objectively.
 !A: 
  we CAN measure the PC objectively. If we can measure ( assess ) PC objectively, it does NOT  necessarily  account whether the  results  of the study are ADEQUATE or INADEQUATE. 
  Look at this way: 
 If you do NOT study diligently ----------> You will fail.
If you DO study diligently ------  not necessarily  ----> You will pass. There might be  other factors  also such as timing, mental state, surroundings, etc.
The results CAN still  sway  in either direction, either   +ve   or   -ve  . 
 Another example: 
 Having an  equipment  for cancer-detection does NOT  necessarily  imply that the patient is suffering from cancer.
The patient may or may not. 
 Similarly,  the assessment of PC( psychological capacities ) being done objectively does  NOT  imply that results are inadequate. It simply  states  that the measurement was done objectively.
 The results may be either   +ve   or   -ve  . 
  
The  negation  of an assumption   MUST    break  the conclusion.

B) Biased researchers frequently misinterpret the results of their studies.
  Great! - However, It does NOT relate with the conclusion at all

C) Young humans and chimps have underdeveloped psychological capacities. 
!C: 
 Young humans and chimps have do NOT have  under developed psychological capacities. 
They both DO not have  under developed PC( psychological capacities ).    Great! - However, It does NOT relate with the conclsuion at all

D) The psychological capacities of babies and young chimps differ significantly.
   Aha!   Exactly what we thought.
Let's negate D: 
 !D : The psychological capacities of babies and young chimps do  NOT  differ significantly.
If the PC( psychological capacities ) do NOT differ, what's the need of all this  ruckus  because everything  GOES  in a positive direction and as  expected .
Thus, the results  ARE  at the expectant(  adequate  ) level.   - Thereby, Breaking the conclusion.

E) Examining the central nervous system is a better way to assess psychological capacity than to study behavior.
 Something else(  central nervous system  ) being better does  NOT  account that the current one(  psychological capacity  ) is of  NO  utility.

saitejareddy8090 · Answer

How can young humans be babies, for all we know the could be toddlers too! The wording of D is not to the point, making me choose "A"

egmat · Answer

Hi saitejareddy8090,

I can see exactly where you snagged: choice  D  says "babies" while the stimulus says "young humans," and you read that swap as a real difference that made D imprecise. Let me settle that one word.

In this argument, "young humans" and "babies" are pointing at the  same group  - human offspring at an early age, set against "young chimps." The argument is contrasting  young humans vs. young chimpanzees , and D contrasts  babies vs. young chimps . Whether you picture an infant or a toddler doesn't change the logical role: it's the human side of the human-vs-chimp comparison. GMAT answer choices routinely restate a stimulus term with a close everyday synonym; the trap is only when the swap changes the  meaning or scope  - and here it doesn't. "Toddler instead of baby" would leave the assumption identical.

So don't let the word "babies" push you off D. The real test is the logic: the author calls the studies  inadequate  because  they found no difference. That only makes sense if the author already believes a difference  should  have shown up - i.e., that human and chimp psychological capacities really do differ significantly. That belief is the unstated premise, and it's exactly what D states.

Why not  A ? A says capacities "cannot be assessed objectively." Negate it - they  can  be assessed objectively - and the argument doesn't collapse; the studies could still be called inadequate for finding no difference. So A isn't required. Negate D - the capacities do  not  differ - and the whole complaint vanishes: a study finding no difference would just be correct. That's the assumption-test that confirms D.

Quick habit to build:  when a choice swaps a word, ask  "does this change the meaning, or just the label?" 
- "young humans" - "babies": same group, logic untouched - safe.
- "young humans" - "all primates": now the scope widened - not safe.

Judge the swap by whether it moves the meaning, not just the wording.

Answer: D

Behavioral studies of young chimpanzees and young humans reveal hardly

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

Behavioral studies of young chimpanzees and young humans reveal hardly

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