Psychologist: In an experiment, volunteers were asked to solve

Question

Psychologist: In an experiment, volunteers were asked to solve abstract arithmetic problems while their brains were being scanned. The brain scans revealed considerable activity in the linguistic-processing centers of the brain. However, it is likely that this activity reflected passing thoughts that are not an indispensable part of arithmetical reasoning processes.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest justification for the psychologist's judgment?

A) The volunteers who reported that they had used language in their minds when solving the arithmetic problems were the most efficient in solving them.
B) The brain scans revealed activity in several parts of the brain other than the linguistic-processing centers.
C) In experiments in which volunteers have been asked to perform mental tasks other than arithmetic while their brains were being scanned, activity was often present in the linguistic-processing centers of the brain.
D) Studies have found that some people who have suffered significant head injuries are still capable of solving arithmetic problems.
E) A second study using the same problems, but with professional mathematicians as research subjects, found that some solved the problems without any significant activity in their linguistic-processing brain centers.

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

Explanation

Psychologist: In an experiment, volunteers were asked to solve abstract arithmetic problems while their brains were being scanned. The brain scans revealed considerable activity in the linguistic-processing centers of the brain. However, it is likely that this activity reflected passing thoughts that are not an indispensable part of arithmetical reasoning processes.

The passage presents the following conclusion:

it is likely that this activity (in the linguistic-processing centers of the brain) reflected passing thoughts that are not an indispensable part of arithmetical reasoning processes

No evidence for the conclusion is provided.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest justification for the psychologist's judgment?

The question asks which choice "provides the strongest justification for the psychologist's judgment." Since "the psychologist's judgment" is another way of saying "the conclusion," the correct answer will be evidence that supports the conclusion.

A) The volunteers who reported that they had used language in their minds when solving the arithmetic problems were the most efficient in solving them.

This choice weakens, rather than strengthens, the case for the conclusion.

After all, if this choice is true, then the activity in the linguistic-processing (language-processing) centers of the brain may not have "reflected passing thoughts that are not an indispensable part of arithmetical reasoning processes," but rather reflected thoughts that were an important part of the arithmetical reasoning processes of these volunteers.

Eliminate.

B) The brain scans revealed activity in several parts of the brain other than the linguistic-processing centers.

This choice could be taken as slightly strengthening the argument. After all, by confirming that there was activity in other parts of the brain, this choice shows that it's possible that the activity in the linguistic-processing centers was not reflective of an indispensable part of the arithmetical reasoning process.

After all, if there were not activity in other parts of the brain, then the activity in the linguistic-processing centers would have been the only activity occurring when the volunteers were solving the problems, meaning that it was almost certainly indispensable to the arithmetical reasoning process.

At the same time, this choice may not be correct because the idea that there would be a situation in which there was activity in only one area of the brains of volunteers solving problems isn't really realistic since there would have to be some activity in different parts of people's brains if their brains were functioning normally. So, my guess is that the question-writer didn't consider that situation realistic and thus didn't figure the idea of that situation into the reasoning about this choice.

In addition, it's a good bet that the question-writer was looking for something that more clearly shows that the activity in the linguistic-processing centers was not indispensable to the mathematical reasoning process than this choice does.

So, I think GMAC made a mistake including this choice since it does strengthen the argument in a way, but I'm not expecting it to be the correct answer.

Keep for now, but expect to find a better choice.

C) In experiments in which volunteers have been asked to perform mental tasks other than arithmetic while their brains were being scanned, activity was often present in the linguistic-processing centers of the brain.

We could get the impression that this choice strengthens the argument by showing that activity in the linguistic-processing centers of the brain is involved in "mental tasks other than arithmetic" and that therefore any activity in those centers is not related to doing arithmetic.

However, the truth is that the fact that some activity that occurs in the linguistic-processing centers is not related to doing arithmetic does not mean that all activity that occurs in those centers is not related to doing arithmetic.

After all, it's possible that the linguistic-processing centers handle a variety of types of tasks. So, while some activity in the linguistic processing centers may not be arithmetic related, other activity in those centers could be essential to doing arithmetic.

Eliminate.

D) Studies have found that some people who have suffered significant head injuries are still capable of solving arithmetic problems.

This choice provides no clear information about linguistic-processing centers since it doesn't say anything about how the injuries affected or did not affect the people's brains.

If it said that people were capable of solving arithmetic problems after injuries to their linguistic-processing centers, then it might strengthen the argument, but it doesn't say anything that specific about the head injuries.

Eliminate.

E) A second study using the same problems, but with professional mathematicians as research subjects, found that some solved the problems without any significant activity in their linguistic-processing brain centers.

This choice provides some clear support for the conclusion that it is likely that the activity in the linguistic-processing centers reflected passing thoughts that are not an indispensable part of arithmetical reasoning processes. After all, if professional mathematicians can solve the problems without such activity occurring, then we can see that that activity is not reflective of an "indispensable," meaning "necessary," part of arithmetical reasoning processes.

The correct answer is (E).

PandCduo · Answer

I think B should be the answer because E says some and not all

Posted from my mobile device

MartyMurray · Answer

Interesting point.

At the same time, if some of the mathematicians could solve the problems without significant activity in their linguistic-processing centers, then we have good reason to believe that such activity is not essential. After all, if it were essential, then all the mathematicians would need to use it.

So, (E) does strengthen the case for the conclusion.

Nsp10 · Answer

Thanks  MartyMurray  for the nice explanation, but I have little doubt regarding option B as isn't it doubting the evidence provided in the argument, so how come we can even consider this as a contender for the answer.

MartyMurray · Answer

Let's compare what the passage says with what (B) says.

Here's what the passage says:

The brain scans revealed considerable activity in the linguistic-processing centers of the brain.

So, the statement in the passage indicates that there was activity in the linguistic-processing centers.

Now, here's (B).

B) The brain scans revealed activity in several parts of the brain other than the linguistic-processing centers.

We see that (B) says that there was activity in other parts of the brain.

Notice that the fact that there was activitiy in other parts of the brain does not conflict with the fact that there was activity in the linguistic-processing centers. After all, there could have been activity both in the linguistic-processing centers and in other parts of the brain.

So, what (B) says does not conflict with what the passage says.

Nsp10 · Answer

but then why it is using the word other than, to me it is sounding like mutually exclusive relation.

MartyMurray · Answer

Yes, this "revealed activity" is in other parts of the brain. That information does not mean that there is not also activity in the linguistic-processing centers.

rahul5657 · Answer

argument:
Claim- The psychologist argues that the observed activity in the linguistic-processing centers of the brain during arithmetic tasks is not essential for solving arithmetic problems.
The evidence is the brain scan results showing activity in these areas during the arithmetic task.

A) The volunteers who reported that they had used language in their minds when solving the arithmetic problems were the most efficient in solving them.
This suggests that language use helped some volunteers solve problems more efficiently, which weaken the psychologist's claim. If, it implies that linguistic-processing is important, not unnecessary.
 Eliminate

B) The brain scans revealed activity in several parts of the brain other than the linguistic-processing centers.
This tells us that other parts of the brain were also involved, but it doesnt show that linguistic-processing is unnecessary. It doesn’t strongly support the psychologist’s conclusion.
 Eliminate

C) In experiments in which volunteers have been asked to perform mental tasks other than arithmetic while their brains were being scanned, activity was often present in the linguistic-processing centers of the brain.
This supports the psychologist’s claim! If linguistic-processing centers are active even for tasks unrelated to arithmetic, it suggests that their activity during arithmetic might not be specific to arithmetic reasoning. Instead, it could reflect general mental processes like "passing thoughts" as the psychologist suggests.
 Keep

D) Studies have found that some people who have suffered significant head injuries are still capable of solving arithmetic problems.
While this suggests that some parts of the brain are not essential for arithmetic, it doesn’t specifically address the linguistic-processing centers or support the psychologist’s conclusion about "passing thoughts."
 Eliminate

E) A second study using the same problems, but with professional mathematicians as research subjects, found that some solved the problems without any significant activity in their linguistic-processing brain centers.
This strongly supports the psychologist’s claim! If professional mathematicians can solve the same problems without using the linguistic-processing centers, it shows that this activity is not indispensable for arithmetic reasoning.
 Keep

C supports the idea that linguistic-processing activity is not specific to arithmetic reasoning.
E directly shows that arithmetic problems can be solved without significant activity in the linguistic-processing centers, making it the stronger justification for the psychologist's judgment.
 Correct Answer is E

Alilee · Answer

C) In experiments in which volunteers have been asked to perform mental tasks other than arithmetic while their brains were being scanned, activity was often present in the linguistic-processing centers of the brain.

Just because activity is present in the linguistic processing part of the brain when doing other tasks aside from arithmetic doesn't mean that this part of the brain can't be essential to many tasks. <- thus does NOT support

E) A second study using the same problems, but with professional mathematicians as research subjects, found that some solved the problems without any significant activity in their linguistic-processing brain centers.

Although it's only some that have no activity in the linguistic part of the brain, it shows that without this part of the brain, the arithmetic can still be solved <- which supports the argument that the linguistic part is NOT essential to solving arithmetic problems.

Key takeaway: confirming argument by changing, adding, or eliminating a variable.

The variable that is changed here is having only math professionals solve the question and see if that changes anything.

When encountering questions like this, think about how changing a variable affects the argument.

Borrat · Answer

Hey  MartyMurray ,

regarding C) , if linguistic activity appears during other kinds of mental tasks , not just arithmetic , well doesn't this support the authors reasoning that arithmetic and linguistic aren't tied together, and its rather incidental ?

in my mind the causal claim author is trying to undermine is:

solve abstract arithmetic problems -> causes - > activity in linguistic-processing

- C kinda removes the cause and the effect remains.

For E) there were a lot of yellow flags -- like the word some which implies at least one or perhaps all , and the fact that professional mathematicians are a highly specialised group - making them a poor representative sample for a "general observation".

In other words, universally incidental beats one extreme case which works either 2% or 98% of the time.

thanks,

MartyMurray · Answer

I see what you mean about (C), but here's the thing.

In the original experiment, there was "considerable" activity in people's linguistic processing centers when people were doing a mental task, solving math problems. So, that observation seems to indicate that those centers were involved in that activity.

Then, (C) indicates that linguistic processing centers are "often," but not always, active when people are performing other types of tasks.

So, (C) doesn't quite meet the "no cause - no effect" test because, apparently, the centers do not become active randomly. They are active only sometimes.

Also, this is all logical. After all, it seems unlikely that a part of a brain would be used for only one thing. So, basically, (C) indicates that, as expected, parts of the brain are used in various ways.

So, the fact that linguistic centers are also active at certain other times doesn't strongly indicate that those centers are not used in solving math problems.

I guess we could say that (C) is a very weak strengthener, but since it's not really new information that centers of the brain would be used in multiple ways, (C) doesn't do much.

An analogous example is the following. When a person bakes a cake, the person's hands move a lot. So, an observer might conclude that use of hands is key for baking a cake. The fact that a person's hands also move a lot when a person is performing other types of tasks doesn't mean that hands are not used in baking a cake. After all, it's common knowledge that hands are useful. So, it would be expected that hands would move in other cases even if they are used in baking a cake.

Regarding (E), an interesting aspect of the example of professional mathematicians solving the problems is that mathematicians would presumably use rather effective methods for doing math since doing math is their profession. Accordingly, the fact that some of them don't use their linguistic processing centers in solving problems provides at least some indication, even if not conclusive proof, that the activity in the linguistic processing centers is not " an  indispensable  part of arithmetical reasoning processes."

Further, if we think about it, even if any people's linguistic processing centers showed no activity when those people were solving such problems, the fact that they solved them without such activity would be evidence indicating that such activity in others' brains isn't involved in solving the problems. After all, if some people do math without such activity, then maybe that activity isn't essential do doing math. Now, we really have the effect, solved problems, without the cause, activity in linguistic processing centers.

eaat · Answer

This one is tricky, I chose C but answer is E - my reasoning:

Conclusion: Likely this activity reflected passing thoughts, not an indispensable part of arithmetic reasoning process -> are dispensable -> nothing to do with the arithmetic 
Why? Considerable activity in the linguistic centers of brain, volunteers doing abstract arithmetic problems

A - would weaken, it’s saying that it would be an indispensable part of the process
B - yeah this makes sense, doesn’t its strength the psych’s judgement i.e. probably lots of activity in arithmetic side of the brain
C - yeah this would strengthen, saying that regardless of the acidity there’s always activity in the linguistic side
D - irrelevant 
E - doesn’t really relate to the judgement

Looking back, I should realize why E doesn't relate. In fact it does, if expert mathematicians can do these problems without activity it means that yeah these thoughts have nothing to do these problems

guddo · Answer

Psychologist: In an experiment, volunteers were asked to solve abstract arithmetic problems while their brains were being scanned. The brain scans revealed considerable activity in the linguistic-processing centers of the brain. However, it is likely that this activity reflected passing thoughts that are not an indispensable part of arithmetical reasoning processes.
 
 Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest justification for the psychologist's judgment?

The psychologist is not denying that language centers were active. The psychologist is saying that this activity was probably not necessary for solving the arithmetic problems. So the best support must show that arithmetic reasoning can occur  without significant activity in the linguistic-processing centers .

(A) The volunteers who reported that they had used language in their minds when solving the arithmetic problems were the most efficient in solving them.

Wrong. This suggests that language may help arithmetic reasoning, so it weakens the psychologist’s judgment rather than supports it.

(B) The brain scans revealed activity in several parts of the brain other than the linguistic-processing centers.

Wrong. Other brain areas being active does not show that the linguistic-processing centers were unnecessary.

(C) In experiments in which volunteers have been asked to perform mental tasks other than arithmetic while their brains were being scanned, activity was often present in the linguistic-processing centers of the brain.

This helps only indirectly. It shows that language-center activity can appear during other tasks too, so such activity may be incidental. But it does not show that arithmetic can be done without it.

(D) Studies have found that some people who have suffered significant head injuries are still capable of solving arithmetic problems.

Wrong. We are not told that the injuries affected linguistic-processing centers, so this does not directly address the psychologist’s claim.

(E) A second study using the same problems, but with professional mathematicians as research subjects, found that some solved the problems without any significant activity in their linguistic-processing brain centers.

Correct. This is the strongest support. If some people solved the same arithmetic problems without significant linguistic-processing activity, then that activity is  not indispensable  to arithmetic reasoning.

Answer: (E)

Psychologist: In an experiment, volunteers were asked to solve

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

Psychologist: In an experiment, volunteers were asked to solve

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