Errors in the performance of repetitive or “boring” tasks—often attrib

Question

Errors in the performance of repetitive or “boring” tasks—often attributed to a momentary lapse in concentration—can be serious in such activities as flying a passenger aircraft. Is there any method that would provide warning of such lapses—for example by monitoring brain activity? Researchers scanned the brains of volunteers performing a repetitive task. When the tasks were being performed correctly, the volunteers' brains showed activity in cognitive-processing regions. However, these regions became less active several seconds before some errors were made, and another brain region, region X, became active. The researchers concluded that the monitoring of region X could provide warning of an impending error.

Which of the following, if true, most supports the researchers' conclusion?

Which of the following, if true, most supports the researchers' conclusion?

A. The cognitive effort required in performing a repetitive task diminishes significantly with increases in the number of repetitions of the task performance.

B. Once a mistake was made and detected, brain activity in regions associated with cognitive effort sometimes increased.

C. Other research found that whenever significant activity occurs in region X, it is generally with repetitive tasks, soon before an error occurs.

D. The diminution of brain activity in cognitive processing regions and the increase of activity in region X began at least 5 seconds before the errors occurred.

E. Reduced activity in brain regions associated with cognitive effort was accompanied by increased activity in regions that become active during sleep.

CR20521.01

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Just because an answer choice mentions  "other research"   doesn't mean that the answer choice is wrong. When you see this kind of wording, just analyze the answer choice as you normally would, asking yourself how well it answers the question.

Let's take a look at (C):

We're trying to support the conclusion that "monitoring region X could provide warning of an impending error." Answer choice (C) tells us that "other research" found significant activity in region X soon before an error occurred. In other words, this "other research" has independently found the  same results  as the research mentioned in the passage. This  strengthens  the possibility that the research mentioned in the passage is correct, because "other research" has found  the same thing .

In addition, the argument tells us that region X becomes more active before people start making errors. However, it doesn't tell us how active region X is in  other  circumstances -- maybe region X becomes active in a ton of different scenarios! For instance, maybe region X becomes active when someone eats a banana. If that were the case, then monitoring region X wouldn't be super useful for preventing errors, because it would give false alarms all the time.

(C) closes that gap by telling us that when region X becomes active, it is "generally" right before someone makes an error. Now we can monitor region X without being too worried about banana-related alarms going off.

So (C) directly supports the conclusion, making it the correct answer.

Let's consider (D):
 
The problem with this answer choice is that it doesn't add anything significant.

We  already know  from the passage that volunteers' brains showed "diminution of brain activity in cognitive processing regions" and an "increase of activity in region X" several seconds before errors were made. The only thing answer choice (D) adds is that these changes occurred "at least five seconds before the error occurred," but this doesn't strengthen the conclusion. We  already know  that the changes occurred "several seconds" before the error, so the fact that it was 5 seconds or longer doesn't add much.

That's why (D) is out.

I hope that helps!

GMATIntensive · Answer

The Story     
 Errors in the performance of repetitive or “boring” tasks—often attributed to a momentary lapse in concentration—can be serious in such activities as flying a passenger aircraft.  - Errors while performing repetitive tasks can have serious repercussions. For example, while flying a passenger aircraft. Such errors are often said to have been caused by a lapse in concentration.

Is there any method that would provide warning of such lapses—for example by monitoring brain activity?  - The author poses a question asking whether there is a method that can provide warning before such lapses occur – possibly by monitoring brain activity.

Researchers scanned the brains of volunteers performing a repetitive task.  - The author gets into talking about research conducted on brains of people performing a repetitive task. (He seems to be answering his own question posed before. He’ll perhaps tell us more about the research next.)

When the tasks were being performed correctly, the volunteers’ brains showed activity in cognitive-processing regions.
  - Here is one finding of the research related to when the tasks were being performed correctly. When tasks were going fine, there was activity in cognitive-processing regions (CPRs).

However, these regions became less active several seconds before some errors were made, and another brain region, region X, became active.  - ‘However’ tells us that the author will now go in the opposite direction. In this statement, we find out what goes on in the brain seconds before some errors were made. The CPRs become less active, and region X becomes active.

The researchers concluded that the monitoring of region X could provide warning of an impending error.  - So the research concludes that one way to provide warning before errors while performing repetitive tasks occur is to monitor brain’s region X.

Gist:  
The author sets up the context in the first two statements – why a method that warns us before an error while performing a repetitive task occurs is needed – because such errors can be serious. He wonders if there is any such method. And then talks about a research that gives us a possible method.

Based on the findings (support):
 When tasks were performed correctly, the brains showed activity in CPRs. 
Several seconds before some errors, CPRs became less active and region X became active.  
  The researchers conclude that monitoring region X could provide warning of an impending error (researchers’conclusion)  .

The Gap     
Was there some other independent factor (and not the impending errors) that might have led to region X becoming active in the research? If so, the activity in region X would not signify an impending error. Basically, were the activity in region X and the errors coincidental?

There could, of course, be other gaps as well.

The Goal     
An answer choice that helps us bridge the gap we’ve talked about would work. There could, as always, be some other gap too that the correct option helps bridge.

The Evaluation

A. The cognitive effort required in performing a repetitive task diminishes significantly with increases in the number of repetitions of the task performance. 
  Incorrect  . First let’s understand what this option says. Cognitive effort required to perform a repetitive task is inversely proportional (at least in one direction) to the number of repetitions of the task. More the repetitions, lower the effort. Even if we assume ‘cognitive effort’ and ‘activity in cognitive-processing regions’ are co-related, all this option hints at is why activity might reduce. No impact on whether monitoring region X could warn about an error.

B. Once a mistake was made and detected, brain activity in regions associated with cognitive effort sometimes increased. 
  Incorrect  . This option talks about what sometimes happens after a mistake has been made and detected. The researchers have drawn a conclusion about what they believe will help prevent errors by raising warnings. Brain activity after a mistake has been detected has no bearing on that.

C. Other research found that whenever significant activity occurs in region X, it is generally with repetitive tasks, soon before an error occurs. 
  Correct  . What did this ‘other’ research find? Typically, significant activity in region X happens only before errors in repetitive tasks. Now that’s interesting. We know from the research in the passage that region X became active before some errors were made. So, often errors are preceded by region X becoming more active. Now we also understand that region X typically becomes active right before errors in repetitive tasks. So, region X activity and errors in repetitive tasks are roughly 1 to 1 mapped. Region X typically does not become active for unrelated reasons. Thus, monitoring region X to raise alarms before errors makes sense.

Let’s say that a research finds that whenever errors in repetitive tasks occured, the volunteers’ eyes were blinking right before. Therefore, monitoring eye movement will help provide warning of impending errors. A counterpoint to this argument would be that eyes blink even when errors do not occur. Thus, monitoring eye movement is not a reliable way to catch impending errors. This option handles such a counterpoint by highlighting that activity in region X typically only happens just before errors in repetitive tasks.

D. The diminution of brain activity in cognitive processing regions and the increase of activity in region X began at least 5 seconds before the errors occurred. 
  Incorrect  . Tricky option. Let’s consider an inverse case. What if the increase of activity in region X began just a split-second before the errors occurred? Does that weaken the conclusion that monitoring region X could provide warnings of impending errors? Not really. Just that perhaps there would not be enough time to act on the warnings to prevent the errors. However, researchers’ conclusion is not that monitoring region X could prevent errors. Their conclusion is that monitoring the region could provide warnings. So the conclusion is not impacted by how much time before the errors the increase of activity began.

E. Reduced activity in brain regions associated with cognitive effort was accompanied by increased activity in regions that become active during sleep. 
  Incorrect  . Reduced activity in certain regions is accompanied by increased activity in certain others.

Lower activity in cognitive effort related regions happens simultaneously with higher activity in regions that become active during sleep.

Even if we take this option to mean that reduced activity in cognitive effort associated regions happens along with higher levels of sleepiness, this option still focusses just on the ‘why’ errors might happen. Whether monitoring region X would help raise warnings is not impacted at all.

If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask.

TarunTilokani · Answer

Option D repeats what's already given in the passage. Any other reason to eliminate option D ?

"However, these regions became less active several seconds before some errors were made, and another brain region, region X, became active"

option D : The diminution of brain activity in cognitive processing regions and the increase of activity in region X began at least 5 seconds before the errors occurred

ArtVandaley · Answer

Yes

It has a fundamental error. Argument says that we can get a warning before the error happens. It doesn't concern us how early we are getting a warning.

D is irrelevant to the argument

Posted from my mobile device

Rajdeep1989 · Answer

Confusion is between Choices C and D. The passage clearly says "several seconds" which i belive is more than 5 seconds. Hence D eliminated. C chosen.

Posted from my mobile device

gmatt1476 · Answer

Official Explanation

Argument Evaluation

This question requires us to find a statement that would provide additional support for the researchers' conclusion that monitoring region X can provide warning that an error is about to be made by someone engaged in a repetitive task.

Note that researchers had observed during brain scans that cognitive-processing regions of the brain remained active when a repetitive task was performed correctly. These regions became less active, and brain region X became active, several seconds before errors were made.

Certainly, further research showing such errors being preceded by the onset of activity in region X would strengthen the researchers' conclusion—this would help rule out that the researchers had simply noticed an unusual coincidence.

However, what would be even more helpful would be to indicate that whenever significant activity in someone's region X occurs, this person is definitively engaged in repetitive tasks and is about to make an error.

To see why this would be helpful, consider: if such activity in region X frequently happened, even when no errors were about to be made, monitoring such activity would not be helpful as a warning that an error was impending. Therefore, ruling this out would support the conclusion.

A. Note that this does not indicate that cognitive effort diminishes; it merely indicates that the amount of such effort required diminishes. Even more important, it tells us nothing about activity in region X.

B. This indicates what sometimes happens after errors are made. However, it gives us no information about what happens soon before an error. Information about that, of course, is what we need if we are trying to determine whether something can provide warning of an impending error.

C. Correct. As indicated above, the conclusion would be well supported by research suggesting that whenever region X has significant activity, this is usually during repetitive tasks and soon before an error occurs.

D. This does not provide additional support for the claim that monitoring region X will be useful as a warning of an impending error. After all, the statement that activity in region X began at least 5 seconds before the errors occurred rules out only that the increase in activity in region X occurred less than 5 seconds before the errors occurred. This statement does not rule out the possibility that the increase came, for example, many hours before the error occurred.

E. Such a discovery may help researchers discover why the errors occurred. However, it does not help support the claim that monitoring region X could provide a warning of impending error.

The correct answer is C.

sayan640 · Answer

Conclusion :- "the monitoring of region X could provide warning of an impending error."
Only option C and D are close...
Rest are irrelevant...
Option C states that "Other research found that whenever significant activity occurs in region X, it is generally with repetitive tasks, soon before an error occurs."
So the other research also found the similar thing as did these researchers...

Option D states that "The diminution of brain activity in cognitive processing regions and the increase of activity in region X began at least 5 seconds before the errors occurred."
This statement merely restates the same information mentioned in the passage i.e "these regions became less active several seconds before some errors were made, and another brain region, region X, became active." We can say "at least 5 seconds " means "several seconds".
So option D does not strengthen.

C is the answer.
Please give me KUDO s if you liked my explanation.

dcummins · Answer

The argument requires evidence to support the hypothesis that monitoring region X will lead to the detection of errors before they occur.

The reason D is incorrect is because it provides insight only on occasions when errors begin. D basically validates the premise by stating 'we found reason to believe X is to be monitored because activity in region X increased about 5 seconds before.

However, C actually strengthens the hypothesis by corroborating the findings with other research. The other findings basically confirms the causal relationship between activity in region X and error occurrence

DealMakerOne · Answer

More boring -> lapse concentration (serious when flying)
If correct, CP regions more active
After error, CP less active, but X region more active
Conclusion: region X -> warning error

Irrelevant. Describes just if CP regions are less active, but nothing’s told about region X. Out.

Irrelevant. We are not interested what happens after the error was made. Out.

One more research with similar results. Region X is associated with repetitive tasks. Seems ok.

Specificity. We don’t need “5 secs”. Irrelevant. Out.

Again, as in A, describes just CP region, but no X region. Irrelevant. Out.

patto · Answer

We dont know whether 5 seconds is enough to provide a warning of an impending error...

AntrikshR · Answer

The most imp thing that I learnt from this question was to identify that this was a causal strengthener question.

The stimulus says: Specific region become less active due to repetitive tasks just before someone commit errors and then Region X becomes active. So if we monitor region X, it can provide warning of the error.

Cause Effect
Specific Region less active due to repetitive tasks---> Region X Active

Now, one way to strengthen the causal statement is to prove that if the effect has happened then cause must also have happened or vice versa.
 Effect Cause
Option C proves this by saying- Significant activity in region X (Region X active) is due to repetitive tasks. Hence it's correct.

Paras0111 · Answer

GMATNinja  I am unfortunately having difficulty in accepting any of the reasons provided above for why (C) is correct and (D) is incorrect. In any other CR question, we would have eliminated (C) citing we are not concerned with 'other research' and also the soon vs atleast 5 sec debate. (D) clearly states 'atleast 5 secs before' which means it could definitely be more than 5 seconds. (C) mentions soon which could mean anything. Could you please help resolve this?

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

Which of the following, if true, most supports the researchers' conclusion?

This doesn't give us why region X has to be monitored which wil help us detect before the error commens

Similar reasoning as A as it doesn't give us any reason as of why the monitoring of region X helps us

Since activity at region X starts soon before the error occurs we are definitely benefitted from monitoring of region X

The key to eleminating this option by getting the idea that at least 5 seconds which means the time frame can also tend to infinity in which case we will not be significantly helped by the monitoring of region X

Therefore IMO C

Paras0111 · Answer

I see it now. (D) doesn't add anything new to the argument. Thanks again for taking the time to clarify!

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  avigutman  - Option D was marked incorrect. The reason given was : Well based on the underlined sentence below - we already knew what option D was saying (i.e. option D is strengthening the premise)

Question   : When you read the underlined sentence VERY carefully 
-- I agree one knows that "cognitiive procession regions" become  less  active  BEFORE  the error occured.

BUT we dont know if region X is activated  BEFORE  the error occured as well because

(i) There is a comma + and (Bolded, Purple font) 
(ii) Reading the blue font, the sentence doesn't specifically say THAT region X also 'activates'  BEFORE  the error.

Given this lack of clarity, the sentence MAY leave open the possibility THAT "Region X" activates 
a) perhaps  at the same time   as the error takes occurs
b) perhaps  after  the error takes occurs
c) perhaps  before  the error takes occurs

Did you not get this issue perhaps ?

Thank you

avigutman · Answer

jabhatta2  Note the simple past tense used in both clauses above ("became").
It's true that only the first clause specified the time at which this action occurred ("several seconds before some errors were made"), but the second clause, by using the same tense, refers to that same moment that the first clause specified.

Analogy:
JD sold his bike 5 years ago, and purchased a small sedan.
When did JD purchase the small sedan? 5 years ago. How do I know? It's implied.

*I'm not 100% certain about what I'm saying in this post. I'm not a grammar expert. This is my opinion, and if I'm wrong I welcome a correction from grammar experts.*

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  avigutman  - One issue with the conclusion is that

Per discussion, we said option C got  rid  of either  false positives (quadrant II)  or  false negatives (quadrant III)

In the picture, false positives were represented in quadrant II   and false negatives were represented in quadrant III

But doesn't option C -- just strengthen quadrant I (top left) ? -- whenever you are pregnant, the test shows you are pregnant, i believe that is the essence of option C

I dont see how option C as is eliminates false positives or false negatives per discussion

jabhatta2 · Answer

avigutman  - tried to put down how option C would have to look, if option C variation WOULD get rid of false positives

Please let me know your thoughts.

avigutman · Answer

jabhatta2  The conclusion was that  the monitoring of region X could provide warning of an impending error.

In general, a warning signal is useful if it only warns when the warning is appropriate. Conversely, a signal that warns inappropriately (lots of false positives) is useless ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_Who_Cried_Wolf )

The banana scenario that you came up with would significantly weaken the conclusion, because monitoring region X isn't very useful if it gets activated for all sorts of other reasons. If you read C carefully, you'll note that it reassures us that  every warning signal  is indeed  generally  an appropriate warning. Please pay extra attention to the word "whenever" in answer choice C.

Errors in the performance of repetitive or “boring” tasks—often attrib

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Errors in the performance of repetitive or “boring” tasks—often attrib

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