Researchers performed an experiment in which airplane pilots

Question

Researchers performed an experiment in which airplane pilots were required to execute a difficult landing in low-visibility conditions on a flight simulator. Results showed that a greater percentage of pilots successfully executed the landing when the logo of the UPA, the largest organization offering flight training to pilots, was displayed in the corner of the simulator. The researchers hypothesized that seeing the logo gave the pilots confidence in their abilities by reminding them they had successfully executed similar landings in order to pass the UPA training program.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers' interpretation of the experiment?

(A) The likelihood that a pilot landed successfully during the simulation increased with the number of hours of training received regardless of whether the logo was displayed.

(B) The researchers conducted a similar experiment in which a logo was displayed to some pilots when simulating an engine failure during flight.

(C) In conditions with low visibility, pilots must rely more on their instruments to execute a successful landing.

(D) Pilots who initially failed the UPA training on difficult landings were also less likely to complete the landing in the experiment when the UPA logo was displayed.

(E) Pilots who had not received training from the UPA were more likely to execute the landing successfully when the UPA logo was displayed.

ruchirS · Accepted Answer

Conclusion is that seeing the logo has an effect on the ability of the pilots. Usually in cause and effect questions, if we can show another example that given the cause, the effect exists, then that option is usually a good strengthening point.

Lets look at the argument closely in our language,
An experiment is being performed where pilots need to perform a difficult landing in low visibility conditions.
When a logo is present, (Logo is of a big organisation which gives flight training), a 'greater percentage' of pilots are successful. (we need to keep these key words in check, this is a percentage point increase, say without the logo 30% pilots were successful and with the logo 40% were successful.)

Now cause here is the presence of the logo and the effect here is the increase in confidence in pilots seeing the logo. You can think of it as: say you got a 700 level CR question with a tag (700+ super hard Bold face) and you got it right and you reviewed it really well. If a similar question comes up later in your prep phase with a tag (700+ super hard Bold Face) then you feel that hey I solved it last time I can nail that question this time. This conclusion of the argument is somewhat similar.
 
Now to strengthen we can do the following:
1) Say something else is causing the higher success rate other than confidence (a weaken scenario), then the correct option would counter that weaken by saying something along the line that nothing else could possibly cause this
2) Or we can show that the cause and effect is present in some other form.

Here we go by the second way. Pre thinking: if we can show some relationship between seeing the logo and effect on confidence then that would be a good choice.

A) This option says that regardless of the logo something else is explaining the higher success rate. this weakens. A is out

B) This option doesn't give us a effect, it just says that another experiment was done. We don't know what was the outcome. B is out.

C) Again nothing about the logo. This doesn't really help us. Maybe instruments are useful but we want to support that logo had some effect. So C is out.

D) This option gives the cause and effect in a different way. Thinking of it in our 700 level question analogy: Suppose you got a 700+ hard CR question (tagged as 700 + super hard Bold Face) during your prep and you had no clue about the question. You just skipped it. And then during a review session you see another question along similar lines with the tag : (700+ super hard Bold Face). Chances are you will be low on confidence on this one. This option says the same thing that pilots who failed, will get reminded that they failed and will have that negative effect on performance. So Hold on to D.

E) Pilots who didn't receive UPA training are not in the scope. The question mentions that the pilots in question completed their UPA training. So E is out

D is the answer.

OG 2018 CR 649 (it was a QOTD as well I think) is a very similar question.

TaN1213 · Answer

I understood with the following analogy: 
 Premise  : Taken gmat prep test by GMAC and performed well -----------> Had more confidence during the actual GMAT
 Hypothesis : Any good experience with the same brand will increase the performance in a test conducted by the same brand.

Strengthener : If the hypothesized correlation applies in the negative direction as well, then it is sure that the hypothesized correlation is true.

D does exactly that. Applying the correlation in negative direction as well.
Those who had taken gmat prep test by GMAC and had performed poorly, were likely to perform poorly in the actual GMAT conducted by GMAC.

souvonik2k · Answer

(A) The likelihood that a pilot landed successfully during the simulation increased with the number of hours of training received regardless of whether the logo was displayed. - Weakens since the logo is not there, it is not reminding them of their training but it is their training that is helping them.

(B) The researchers conducted a similar experiment in which a logo was displayed to some pilots when simulating an engine failure during flight. - Irrelevant

(C) In conditions with low visibility, pilots must rely more on their instruments to execute a successful landing. - Irrelevant

(D) Pilots who initially failed the UPA training on difficult landings were also less likely to complete the landing in the experiment when the UPA logo was displayed. - Strengthens. Since the pilots had failed the UPA training so displaying the logo did not help in completing the landing.

(E) Pilots who had not received training from the UPA were more likely to execute the landing successfully when the UPA logo was displayed- Weakens, since then the UPA logo is not reminding them of their training.

Answer D.

arijitd · Answer

Answer is D

A) The likelihood that a pilot landed successfully during the simulation increased with the number of hours of training received regardless of whether the logo was displayed. ----> weakens the argument

(B) The researchers conducted a similar experiment in which a logo was displayed to some pilots when simulating an engine failure during flight. -----> out of scope, this experiment doesn't matter.
(C) In conditions with low visibility, pilots must rely more on their instruments to execute a successful landing. ---> might be in real life but its not what we are discussing.

(D) Pilots who initially failed the UPA training on difficult landings were also less likely to complete the landing in the experiment when the UPA logo was displayed. -----> Strengthens the argument (logo reminds the pilot about their performance in the training)

(E) Pilots who had not received training from the UPA were more likely to execute the landing successfully when the UPA logo was displayed ----> out of scope

pikolo2510 · Answer

Successful landing during training ----> successful landing during experiment with the logo ---> Gave them confidence that they had done this in the past

Unsuccessful landing during training ---> unsuccessful landing during experiment with the logo ---> reminded them that they had failed this in the past

D - Strengthens the argument

AdityaHongunti · Answer

Let's get ready to RUMBLE-

Passage analysis -
1. R's performed an experiment - airplane pilots were to make a difficult landing in low visibility condition on a flight simulator (flight simulation - not an actual flight but a pseudo scenario often used for training and testing )
2. Result - A greater PERCENTAGE of pilots were successful in landing. when? When UPA logo was present. That implies a lower percentage of pilots were successful when no UPA LOGO present. 
3. UPA - largest organization.
4. R's hypothesize - success is due to the LOGO which instills confidence in the pilots as in a similar condition while training at UPA they were successful. IN short - SUCCESS at UPA training+LOGO = greater probability of success at landing.

Inferences - 1. lower percentage of pilots were successful when no UPA LOGO present. 
2. The pilots mentioned were UPA students.
3. Not a plane causal relationship but a  sum of two variables lead to one.

Question stem analysis - 
we are asked for a s tatement or a data point that would make us believe more in the interpretation of the result ie. the hypothesis / the causal relationship .

Thought process - 
the conclusion is the hypothesis - The logo+ the success at UPA lead to greater success rate at landing.
Now in what scenrio will this relationship be false or may not be true? 
1.If the same pilots were used for exp 1 ( NO LOGO ) and for exp 2 ( LOGO ). in this scenario the probabilty of causal realtionship lessens as another probable cause which is PRACTICE OR THE CONFIDENCE IN SECOND ATTEMPT. this will break the hypothesis.
2. What if the SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT itself instilled the pilots with a carefree or no tense environment. ( EVER WATCHED TOM HANK'S SULLY ? ) what if in the real flight the pilots fail or show no greater success rate regardless of the presence of the logo.? 
3. The researchers explicitly mention in their hypothesis that not just the LOGO but the confidence it instills in the PILOTS WHO WERE SUCCESSFULL IN UPA TRAINING leads to the result. Now what if we attack one part of the cause ie. consider pilots who were not successful/failed and still were among the percentage who were successfull with LOGO. this will break one of the part and hence the entire cause because as I said the result is a sum of two variables. LOGO + SUCCESS at training.
Any of the above would cast doubt on the hypothesis and hence any answer choice that would negate these thoughts is the answer.

Answer choice analysis- 
A. The likelihood that a pilot landed successfully during the simulation increased with the number of hours of training received regardless of whether the logo was displayed. -  WEAKENS. In line with thought 1. ( in a way )

B) The researchers conducted a similar experiment in which a logo was displayed to some pilots when simulating an engine failure during flight-NO IMPACT-  we do not know what were the results. COULD EVEN WEAKEN THE HYPO.
 
C ) In conditions with low visibility, pilots must rely more on their instruments to execute a successful landing-  NO IMPACT- We have to strengthen the hypothesis ie the causal relationship .

(D) Pilots who initially failed the UPA training on difficult landings were also less likely to complete the landing in the experiment when the UPA logo was displayed.-  Negates thought 3. The answer.

(E) Pilots who had not received training from the UPA were more likely to execute the landing successfully when the UPA logo was displayed - IN A WAY WEAKENS. The answer choice eliminates the existence of one part of the cause and states that one part leads to the result. Hence not a strengthener.

hope I'm right.

GyMrAT · Answer

Question Stem: Strongly supports implies a Strengthen CR question

Argument Analysis:
Premise 1: Experiment conducted on Pilots to test their landing skills to perform difficult landing in low visibility condition.

Premise 2: Greater percentage of successful landings done when UPA logo was displayed on simulator

Conclusion: The logo displayed, gave confidence to the pilots by reminding of similar successful landings performed during their training program.

Analysis: A cause & effect relationship is used to demonstrate that the logo displayed has a vital role to play in the case of successful landings done on the simulator by pilots, who had done similar such landings during their training.
Hence, the logo has a psychological effect on the ability of the pilots to perform landings. A correct answer should provide evidence of this effect.

(A) The likelihood that a pilot landed successfully during the simulation increased with the number of hours of training received regardless of whether the logo was displayed. -  Incorrect. This statement makes the logo seem like a trivial aspect & undermines the emphasis of the logo in successful landings. Weakens the conclusion

(B) The researchers conducted a similar experiment in which a logo was displayed to some pilots when simulating an engine failure during flight. -  Incorrect. This is a trap answer, as it might seem analogous to the argument, however it does not mention the outcome/effect of the experiment, whether it had any effect on the ability of the pilots to handle engine failures.
 
(C) In conditions with low visibility, pilots must rely more on their instruments to execute a successful landing. -  Incorrect. This statement weakens the conclusion by suggesting an alternate approach for successful landings.

(D) Pilots who initially failed the UPA training on difficult landings were also less likely to complete the landing in the experiment when the UPA logo was displayed. -  Correct. This statement clearly demonstrates a psychological connection, for the likelihood of not completing the landing, to the logo displayed, by providing the evidence that these pilots had failed the landings during training.

(E) Pilots who had not received training from the UPA were more likely to execute the landing successfully when the UPA logo was displayed. 
-  Incorrect. Weakens the conclusion, by providing evidence that the logo has effect not only on pilots trained by UPA but also on those not trained by UPA. Suggesting a disconnect in the confidence boosting effect of the logo, on pilots trained by UPA.

Answer: D

Hope it is the correct answer & helps in understanding why it is correct.

Thanks,
Gym

Skywalker18 · Answer

Researchers performed an experiment in which airplane pilots were required to execute a difficult landing in low-visibility conditions on a flight simulator. Results showed that a greater percentage of pilots successfully executed the landing when the logo of the UPA, the largest organization offering flight training to pilots, was displayed in the corner of the simulator. The researchers hypothesized that seeing the logo gave the pilots confidence in their abilities by reminding them they had successfully executed similar landings in order to pass the UPA training program.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers' interpretation of the experiment?

The researchers’ explanation is specific: the UPA logo helped because it reminded pilots of their own prior success in similar UPA training, which increased confidence. So the best support would show that the effect is tied to whether a pilot had previously succeeded in that kind of training.

(A) The likelihood that a pilot landed successfully during the simulation increased with the number of hours of training received regardless of whether the logo was displayed.

This does not support the interpretation much. It shows training matters, but not that the logo worked by reminding pilots of prior success.

(B) The researchers conducted a similar experiment in which a logo was displayed to some pilots when simulating an engine failure during flight.

This says almost nothing by itself. We are not told what happened in that experiment.

(C) In conditions with low visibility, pilots must rely more on their instruments to execute a successful landing.

This is irrelevant. It says nothing about the effect of the logo.

(D) Pilots who initially failed the UPA training on difficult landings were also less likely to complete the landing in the experiment when the UPA logo was displayed.

This most strongly supports the interpretation. If the logo works by reminding pilots of earlier successful similar landings, then pilots who lacked that prior success should get less benefit from the logo. That is exactly what this choice shows.

(E) Pilots who had not received training from the UPA were more likely to execute the landing successfully when the UPA logo was displayed.

This weakens the interpretation. If even pilots without UPA training benefit, then the effect is probably not coming from memories of having passed UPA training.

Answer: (D)

Answer D

souvik101990 · Answer

Solution: 
(1) Identify the Question
The word support in the question indicates that this is a Strengthen the Argument question.

(2) Deconstruct the Argument
Researchers conducted a study that showed pilots were more successful at completing landings if the logo of a training organization was displayed on the screen. The researchers explain these results by suggesting that the logo provides confidence to the pilots by reminding them of prior similar experiences during training.

Here is one possible way to map the argument.

Study: Better landing w/ logo
 Logo gives confidence from training

(3) State the Goal
The goal on a Strengthen question is to support the conclusion. In this case, you are specifically trying to support the researchers' explanation for why the displaying the logo improved landing success (not just the results of the study in general): the logo gave the pilots confidence because it reminded them of successful landings from training.

(4) Work From Wrong to Right

(A) This answer supports the idea that training or experience is important to landing successfully. It does not, however, directly support the researchers interpretation of why the logo is important because the greater success rates occurred regardless of whether the logo was displayed.

(B) Just knowing that researchers conducted a similar experiment does not support the interpretation of this experiment. If the other experiment had similar findings, that could support the conclusion.

(C) This information provides a reason why low visibility landings might be difficult. It does not, however, explain the results relating to the logo or the researchers' interpretation.

(D) CORRECT. This answer supports the researchers' interpretation of the results that the logo makes pilots think about their UPA training. For pilots who failed the training initially, seeing the logo and thinking about training shakes their confidence by reminding them of their failed training. This reminder results in worse outcomes, the opposite result compared to pilots who were successful during training.

(E) This answer weakens the argument. These results call into question the logic proposed by the researchers. If the researchers are correct, the logo should not affect pilots who did not take UPA training because there is no reason the UPA logo should boost their confidence.

yimmyyam · Answer

Researchers performed an experiment in which airplane pilots were required to execute a difficult landing in low-visibility conditions on a flight simulator. Results showed that a greater percentage of pilots successfully executed the landing when the logo of the UPA, the largest organization offering flight training to pilots, was displayed in the corner of the simulator. The researchers hypothesized that seeing the logo gave the pilots confidence in their abilities by reminding them they had successfully executed similar landings in order to pass the UPA training program.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers' interpretation of the experiment?

(A) The likelihood that a pilot landed successfully during the simulation increased with the number of hours of training received regardless of whether the logo was displayed. (this weakens)

(B) The researchers conducted a similar experiment in which a logo was displayed to some pilots when simulating an engine failure during flight. (out of scope)

(C) In conditions with low visibility, pilots must rely more on their instruments to execute a successful landing. (trap question)

(D) Pilots who initially failed the UPA training on difficult landings were also less likely to complete the landing in the experiment when the UPA logo was displayed. (Strengthens as it explains pilots) Correct!

(E) Pilots who had not received training from the UPA were more likely to execute the landing successfully when the UPA logo was displaye (this weakens)

agrasan · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB   MartyMurray 
Is my reasoning apt for (D) and (E)?

The core logic used by the researchers in hypothesis is:
 Seeing the logo (1) --> Reminded of past successful landings in trainings (2) --> Increased likelihood of landings in low visibility (3)

(D) provides support to this hypothesis by saying that when (2) didn't happen, then (3) also didn't happen.

(E) weakens the argument because (E) says that (3) happens even when (2) doesn't happen.

MartyMurray · Answer

Yes, that's exactly how those two answer choices work.

guddo · Answer

Researchers performed an experiment in which airplane pilots were required to execute a difficult landing in low-visibility conditions on a flight simulator. Results showed that a greater percentage of pilots successfully executed the landing when the logo of the UPA, the largest organization offering flight training to pilots, was displayed in the corner of the simulator. The researchers hypothesized that seeing the logo gave the pilots confidence in their abilities by reminding them they had successfully executed similar landings in order to pass the UPA training program. 
 
Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the researchers' interpretation of the experiment?

The researchers’ explanation is specific: the UPA logo helped because it reminded pilots of  their own prior success  in similar UPA training, which increased confidence. So the best support would show that the effect is tied to whether a pilot had previously succeeded in that kind of training.

(A) The likelihood that a pilot landed successfully during the simulation increased with the number of hours of training received regardless of whether the logo was displayed.

This does not support the interpretation much. It shows training matters, but not that the logo worked by reminding pilots of prior success.

(B) The researchers conducted a similar experiment in which a logo was displayed to some pilots when simulating an engine failure during flight.

This says almost nothing by itself. We are not told what happened in that experiment.

(C) In conditions with low visibility, pilots must rely more on their instruments to execute a successful landing.

This is irrelevant. It says nothing about the effect of the logo.

(D) Pilots who initially failed the UPA training on difficult landings were also less likely to complete the landing in the experiment when the UPA logo was displayed.

This most strongly supports the interpretation.  If the logo works by reminding pilots of earlier successful similar landings, then pilots who lacked that prior success should get less benefit from the logo.  That is exactly what this choice shows.

(E) Pilots who had not received training from the UPA were more likely to execute the landing successfully when the UPA logo was displayed.

This weakens the interpretation. If even pilots without UPA training benefit, then the effect is probably not coming from memories of having passed UPA training.

Answer: (D)

KarishmaB · Answer

Yes, this is the same as the official credit card logo question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/studies-in-r ... ml#p375714

Researchers performed an experiment in which airplane pilots

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

Researchers performed an experiment in which airplane pilots

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