V38-02

Question

In a study, children were observed in a room filled with unfamiliar toys. When no adult was present, they shared equally with siblings and non-siblings. But with an adult in the room present, the children shared toys more often with their siblings than with non-siblings. Therefore, the psychologist concludes that children are especially inclined to share with family members when they know they are being observed by an authority figure.
 
The psychologist's argument would be most strengthened if it were true that, during the study, the children exhibited increased sharing behavior when:

A. the toys in the room were new to the children, rather than toys they had previously played with at home.
B. the observing adult was a parent of the siblings, rather than a stranger or non-relative adult.
C. the siblings were younger and appeared to need help understanding how to use the toys, compared to non-siblings who were adept at using the toys.
D. the room had more toys available than usual, making it easier for children to find and share multiple toys.
E. the adult explicitly encouraged the children to share, regardless of whether the other child was a sibling or a non-sibling.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

In a study, children were observed in a room filled with unfamiliar toys. When no adult was present, they shared equally with siblings and non-siblings. But with an adult in the room present, the children shared toys more often with their siblings than with non-siblings. Therefore, the psychologist concludes that children are especially inclined to share with family members when they know they are being observed by an authority figure.
 
The psychologist's argument would be most strengthened if it were true that, during the study, the children exhibited increased sharing behavior when:

A. the toys in the room were new to the children, rather than toys they had previously played with at home.
B. the observing adult was a parent of the siblings, rather than a stranger or non-relative adult.
C. the siblings were younger and appeared to need help understanding how to use the toys, compared to non-siblings who were adept at using the toys.
D. the room had more toys available than usual, making it easier for children to find and share multiple toys.
E. the adult explicitly encouraged the children to share, regardless of whether the other child was a sibling or a non-sibling.

Correct Answer: B. The observing adult was a parent of the siblings, rather than a stranger or non-relative adult. 
 
This answer strengthens the psychologist's argument that children are more inclined to share with family members when observed by an authority figure by specifying that the authority figure is closely related to the children. This suggests that the presence of a familiar authority figure (like a parent), as opposed to a stranger, might have a significant impact on the children's choice to share specifically with siblings, reinforcing the observation's connection to familial authority.
 
 A. The toys in the room were new to the children, rather than toys they had previously played with at home.  
 
This choice does not directly affect the children's decision to share with siblings versus non-siblings when observed by an adult. It focuses on the novelty of toys, which is unrelated to the influence of an adult observer on familial sharing behavior.
 
 C. The siblings were younger and appeared to need help understanding how to use the toys, compared to non-siblings who were adept at using the toys  
 
This choice introduces another variable (the age and competence of the children) that could influence sharing behavior, but it does not directly support the idea that observation by an adult specifically encourages sharing with siblings.
 
 D. The room had more toys available than usual, making it easier for children to find and share multiple toys.  
 
This option focuses on the availability of toys rather than the influence of an adult's presence on sharing behavior. While more toys might make sharing easier, it doesn’t specifically strengthen the argument about sharing more with siblings under adult observation.
 
 E. The adult explicitly encouraged the children to share, regardless of whether the other child was a sibling or a non-sibling.  
 
This choice weakens the argument rather than strengthening it. If the adult encouraged sharing with all children equally, it suggests that the observed difference in sharing between siblings and non-siblings might not be influenced by the adult’s familial relationship but simply by general encouragement to share.

Answer: B

RocketScience1 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

JuniqueLid · Answer

I disagree with the OA. It claims that it strengthens the psychologist’s argument that children are more inclined to share with family when they are being observed by an authority figure. However, this actually undermines the causal inference the psychologist is making. The argument seeks to attribute the cause of increased sharing with siblings to the presence of an authority figure — not to the authority figure being someone emotionally close or familiar to the child. By introducing a parent as the observer, (B) confounds the variable of authority with emotional attachment and desire to please a caregiver. Children may be more likely to share with siblings in front of a parent not because the parent is an authority figure per se, but because they want to gain approval or avoid disapproval from someone emotionally significant.

In other words, (B) muddies the waters: if a parent is present, it becomes unclear whether the observed behavior is driven by general authority pressure, or by familial dynamics

(E) is better because it provides a control condition that helps isolate the variable of interest — the psychologist’s claim that the presence of an authority figure amplifies a child’s tendency to share more with family. In this scenario, the adult (authority) applies equal social pressure to share across all peer types. If children preferentially share more with siblings under these neutral conditions, it strengthens the argument that authority presence accentuates familial loyalty, rather than just prompting general compliance or fairness.

tanmaylodha · Answer

I don’t quite agree with the solution. I think E is a better choice

bb · Answer

Thank you for the question!

The problem with E) is that if an adult’s instructions and not just their presence trigger sharing equally with siblings and non-siblings, the special “family under observation” effect disappears from the argument and it is weakened.

Ro_007 · Answer

I think the way I view these 2 options are as follows:

b) the passage does not give importance to whether the figure is a parent / non-parent - even the conclusion only uses the word adult. if the goal is to strengthen this from perspective of "adult, we cannot  (and in case of experiments are not allowed to)  make inferences of that the presence of a "parent" influences the behaviour. this weakens the argument of "adult" presence influencing behaviour.

e) here - the way I view it is, "despite" the presence and active encouragement of the adult to share with anyone, the child CHOOSES to share with siblings, possibly proving / strengthening that it is the presence of the adult (whether parent or not) which causes this behaviour. one could argue that the adult preaching the child affects this conclusion but viewing it from the above perspective made some sense to me.

pls let me know ur thoughts

bb · Answer

You missed one part of the argument which is a figure of authority, not any adult!

Likewise, conclusion does not say adult but authority figure. Let me know if I missed anything in your comment... late here

Are you assuming that any adult is a figure of authority? This may be cultural aspect but not all adults would carry the same authority usually. This argument distinguishes between adult and an adult who is a figure of authority.

rak08 · Answer

E & B confused me
however,
I realised if the adult is generically encouraging then adult being there or not being there makes literally no difference. 
we want to establish that adult / authoritative figure DROVE the decision taken by the children

miag · Answer

Hi,

I agree with your reason for rejecting E). For B), this basically supports the psychologist's argument by supporting the idea that when the authority figure is a family member, the children would become more inclined to share with family members.

Hope this helps!

kartickdey · Answer

Bunuel   bb 
in the stimulus a parent or teacher has been examplified as an authority of figure. one teacher is a non-relative adult. So I could not understand how option B could be right. Please explain.

miag · Answer

Hi, Let me try to help clarify: Even though teachers are authority figures, parents have a special authority over family behavior. If children share more with siblings when the observer is a parent, that strengthens the idea that being watched by an authority figure makes children favor family members. That’s why B strengthens the argument. Hope this helps!

RonPurewal · Answer

Bunuel , I think this problem becomes more cohesive with the following minor edit to the prompt:

because the presence of the text "an authority figure (a parent or teacher)" renders answer choice B superfluous. The function of choice B is ostensibly to create reasonably dispositive evidence that the adult is an authority figure—but if the text alrdy explicitly tells us that the adult is "an authority figure" then that's a  stated fact . Statements of fact can't be "strengthened".

Besides, the commonsense realization that a parent of both siblings who are sharing is,  ipso facto , an authority figure—WITHOUT having to be told so explicitly—is arch-typical of the kinds of connections required to solve GMAC's official strengthen/weaken/explain problems.

.

Which is fine, because it's a "strengthen" problem—not a "prove" problem. The directions don't lie to you, so in fact you can be absolutely certain that the reasoning underlying the correct answer will NOT be airtight formal logic.

.

(E)  weakens  the argument, by suggesting that the kids share because they're explicitly instructed to do so—not just because they're passively aware of 'being watched by headquarters' as the argument asserts.

VenkataSai · Answer

I don’t quite agree with the solution. Where in the passage's conclusion is it mentioned that if the authority figure is a known person only then, the kids are willing to share with siblings. The conclusion clearly mentions "Authoritative figure" only.

So if option B were true, it would mean that they share only when the authoritative figure is a known person. Now this would weaken the conclusion by parting it into two. SO how come this is the answer?

Kindly explain

bb · Answer

Hopefully they would know the parent because the text says  "    When an authority figure (a parent or teacher)"

Also, how would one be an authoritative figure if they were not known? How do they know they are a teacher or a parent vs. random adult?

nikhilkaps · Answer

The authority figure could also be a teacher (or some other adult non-relative as well) who is not related to the sibling. That's why I feel E is a better choice.

V38-02

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