In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj

Question

In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny object was placed in front of infants aged 10 to 12 months. The reactions of each infant were recorded, and the results of the experiment showed that almost 90% of the infants, although not failing to recognize the presence of the object, did not choose to touch it in any way. It can be deduced that infants that age are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?

(A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities

(B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it

(C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals

(D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone

(E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny object was placed in front of infants aged 10 to 12 months. The reactions of each infant were recorded, and the results of the experiment showed that almost 90% of the infants, although not failing to recognize the presence of the object, did not choose to touch it in any way. It can be deduced that infants that age are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?

(A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities

Incorrect.

To solve this Investigation question, first break down the argument. The first two sentences are premises, citing facts. The last sentence begins with the conclusion phrase It can be deduced which shows us that it's the argument's conclusion.

Premise A: an irregular object was placed in front of infants aged 10 to 12 months
 +
Premise B: 90% of them did not touch it, although they recognized its presence
 =
Conclusion: infants at this age are not curious about unfamiliar objects

Vital factor: ?

You are required to find the factor which is most crucial to the author's conclusion. The correct answer is a question which could support or weaken the conclusion depending on its answer.

This factor is irrelevant. The argument deals with an infant's ability to reach out and touch an object. Therefore, vocal abilities are not required and cannot affect the conclusion.

(B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it

Incorrect.

This question is beyond the scope of the argument. The experiment offers two outcomes: contact with the object, or no contact with the object. Once the object has been touched the result is recorded. Therefore, whatever the infant does beyond the point where he/she chooses to touch the object is irrelevant.

(C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals

Incorrect.

This answer choice does not relate to the conclusion. Since the argument focuses on a shiny object, sound is an irrelevant issue.

(D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone

Incorrect.

This answer choice fails to refer to the author's conclusion. The experiment deals with a specific ability - touching a foreign object. Therefore, distinguishing people based on facial features is beside the point.

(E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually

This answer choice brings forward a factor that may influence the author's claim. If infants observe rather than touch objects they are curious about, then maybe the conclusion is wrong and those infants were curious about the object. If this is not the case, it becomes more likely that the infants are not curious about unfamiliar objects.

sumitkrocks · Answer

Conclusion : infants that age are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them.

(A)  vocal ability/disabilities is out of context

(B)  Irrelevant

(C)  Audio senses are out of context-Focus is on visual

(D)  Knowing behaviors while reacting to familiar things would not help much to conclude on behavior when encountered with unfamiliar ones

(E)  yes-  IF in general infants do not show any response in that age, we can not expect in our trial experiment also 
Otherwise conclusion holds

GyanaDash · Answer

Hi,

My analysis is as follows:

In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny object was placed in front of infants aged 10 to 12 months. The reactions of each infant were recorded, and the results of the experiment showed that almost 90% of the infants, although not failing to recognize the presence of the object, did not choose to touch it in any way. It can be deduced that infants that age are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?

(A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities
 The question specifically talks about infants "touching" the object. Hence, vocal disabilities should not come into picture here.

(B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it
 The experiment (as described) is limited to the infants touching the object, and does not talk about what the infant does after touching it.

(C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals
 If the infants react to audio stimuli is immaterial to the discussion.

(D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone
 The experiment is about objects, and not people.

(E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually
 CORRECT. If we think about it, if the infant is curious, but is studying the object visually, then it would not touch it.

All suggestions are appreciated. Thank you.

mSKR · Answer

A still cant strengthen or weaken the argument
B it will have no effect on the conclusion
C: If Yes : it weakens the conclusion
 If No then it strengthens the conclusion
D: irrelevant about people. We care about objects
E: it doesn’t effect conclusion. If yes it strengthens but if No it is irrelevant.

Hence C is the suitable answer

asishron29181 · Answer

Premise: The reactions of each infant were recorded, and the results of the experiment showed that almost 90% of the infants did not choose to touch it in any way.
 
Conclusion: It can be deduced that infants that age are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?

(A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities- Vocal disabilities are out of scope. Incorrect

(B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it
- Irrelevant to the context. Incorrect

(C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals - 'Audio signals' are out of scope. Incorrect

(D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone - 'people' and objects are two different things here. Irrelevant

(E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually - Correct.

IMO E

kantapong · Answer

Prompt: Assumption
Premise: 90% not touch shiny objects
Conclusion: Infants of that age are not curious about foreign objects
LJ: gap between touching and being curious

A. vocal disabilities - do not bridge the gap
B. remaining 10%, in mouth - do not bridge the gap
C. whether to react with audio - KEEP
D. facial features - do not bridge the gap
E. study objects visually - KEEP

C does not bridge the gap because if it is false, then we still could not answer the question. E bridges the gap because if say yes, the author argument is strengthened, and if say no, the author's argument is weakened.
I choose E.

HarshaBujji · Answer

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument ? Type: Evaluate. Argument: Some experiments on infants to know whether they are curious about objects that are foreign to them. Details of the experiment are mentioned. Conclusion: Infants that age (10-12 months) are still not curious about objects that are foreign to them. Pre-Thinking: Relation between touching the object and curiosity Whether they know which object is foreign. (A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities Irrelvent, OFS as vocal disabilities is not part of this argument. (B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it Same, Irrelevant as it won't impact conclusion. (C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals Same OFS, Irrelevant as it won't impact conclusion. (D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone ISWAT, Instead of ppl if they used a more generalized word I would have picked this choice. (E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually Yeah, Inline with pre-thinking. We can apply the variance test. If they can study then a conclusion holds good, If they can't distinguish familiar/non-familiar objects then the conclusion is shattered. IMO E But took nearly 2.30 min, I think it below average time

Showmeyaa · Answer

(A) Whether the infants chosen for the experiment underwent screening that could eliminate those with vocal disabilities
 It is a visual exercise. Knowing about their vocal disabilities won't help!

(B) Whether the remaining 10% of the infants chose to place the object in the vicinity of their mouths after touching it
 Irrelevant, as we are not concerned what they do after touching it!

(C) Whether such infants react with curiosity to stimuli that are presented to them in the form of audio signals
 Again, it's a visual exercise, knowing about the audio signals won't help!

(D) Whether infants aged 10 to 12 months have the ability to distinguish people familiar to them based on facial features alone
 It doesn't help us answer the question, why are children not curious about the foreign object!

(E) Whether infants that age show a tendency to study objects of interest visually
 Yes, if it's a general notion then we can easily say that they are not curious to finding foreign objects at that age.

IMO, (E)!

mSKR · Answer

Hi IanStewart You almost post to these CR questions . Could you please give your comments on C vs E. As per argument, infants can recognize object but don't touch it. So we are not sure this touching is necessary to make a conclusion that they are curious. My reasoning of choosing C: How can I find if they are curious or not? What if i use audio sounds. Using audio, if we can determine they are curious then we can strenghthen or weaken the conclusion. Why i gave preference to audio because what do you expect from an infant of 10-12 months. He even hardly cant walk or roll too much . What if the object is far and even he is curious, he could not move. But with audio signal you can get rid of all these assumptions. Why I didn't like E: 1st of all, there is no scientifc rule that 10-12 months can or can not observe. It is based on experiments. We already have results of expereiments that 90% didn't touch. So why we are going back on tendency? I would not have mind if instead of tendency, some scientific proof would have mentioned. 2ndly: the conclusion says about curiousity . Why do I need to narrow myself of the curisouty visually. what if they are curious but not visually then conclusion could still hold true. I focus on conclusion to strenghten or weaken it , not to strengthen or weaken the premise. Please share your comments AndrewN ExpertsGlobal5 IanStewart mcelroytutoring

IanStewart · Answer

I think you've changed the conclusion of the argument before considering the answer choices. The argument's conclusion is  not  "infants are not curious". The conclusion is "infants are not curious  about objects ". Answer C might be relevant if the conclusion was about curiosity in general, but if we learned about how infants respond to audio signals, that would only tell us whether infants are curious about sounds. We'd have no information about how curious infants are about objects.

The argument says "infants don't touch objects, so they aren't curious about objects". But maybe infants just don't like to touch things -- they could still be curious. We'd be better able to evaluate the argument if we investigated infants' interest in  objects  in a different way. That's why E is relevant here (and no other answer choice really has anything to do with the conclusion, so you could reach E just by eliminating other options).

But reading this question, I also wonder what value questions like this add to a test taker's prep. As soon as I read in the stem "although not failing to recognize..." I wanted to move on to some other problem that was intelligibly written. There's no reason to use a double-negative like "not failing" in this context, and no real GMAT question ever would.

ar21x · Answer

IMO (E)

A,B and C are irrelevant
D is not the addition information needed

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj

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

In a psychological experiment, an irregular and attractively shiny obj

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