Psychologists spent three months training volunteers in a meditation

Question

Psychologists spent three months training volunteers in a meditation technique that centers on minimizing distractions, while other volunteers received no training. Then all the volunteers were asked to pick out numbers from a stream of distracting letters that appeared on a video screen. The volunteers who had undergone meditation training were much better than the others at detecting the numbers. The psychologists concluded that practicing the concentration required by the meditation technique improves overall focus and attention.

In order to assess the strength of the psychologist's argument, it would be most helpful to know which of the following?

A. By what specific methods the psychologists trained the volunteers in the meditation technique

B. What proportion of the numbers the volunteers who had undergone the meditation training were able to detect

C. Why the psychologists tested only one meditation technique that centers on minimizing distractions

D. How much time elapsed between volunteers' meditation training and their participation in the number-detection activity

E. To what extent the volunteers' belief in the meditation technique's effectiveness influenced their performance when attempting to pick out the numbers

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

Psychologists spent three months training volunteers in a meditation technique that centers on minimizing distractions, while other volunteers received no training. Then all the volunteers were asked to pick out numbers from a stream of distracting letters that appeared on a video screen. The volunteers who had undergone meditation training were much better than the others at detecting the numbers. The psychologists concluded that practicing the concentration required by the meditation technique improves overall focus and attention.

The psychologists' conclusion is the following:

practicing the concentration required by the meditation technique improves overall focus and attention

The support for the conclusion is the following:

The volunteers who had undergone meditation training were much better than the others at detecting the numbers.

So, basically, the psychologists observed a correlation between undergoing meditation training and being better at detectng the numbers and concluded that the first causes the second.

In order to assess the strength of the psychologist's argument, it would be most helpful to know which of the following?

This question is an Evaluate question, and the correct answer will be such that different answers to it strengthen or weaken the argument.

A. By what specific methods the psychologists trained the volunteers in the meditation technique

Answers to this question have no effect on the argument.

After all, regardless of what exactly the methods were, the volunteers who had undergone the training that used those methods were better at detecting the numbers, and that information supports the conclusion.

Eliminate.

B. What proportion of the numbers the volunteers who had undergone the meditation training were able to detect

The answer to this question could seem to matter because the proportion of the numbers the volunteers were able to detect reflects the levels of focus and attention they were able to achieve.

At the same time, the truth is that the answers to this question have no effect on the strength of the argument.

After all, regardless of what proportion of the numbers the volunteers who had undergone the training were able to detect, they detected more than the volunteers who had not undergone the training, and that fact is what supports the conclusion.

In other words, the support for the conclusion is the comparison between the performances of the two groups, and the exact performance of those who got the training doesn't matter.

Eliminate.

C. Why the psychologists tested only one meditation technique that centers on minimizing distractions

The answer to this question has no effect on the strength of the argument. After all, regardless of why the psychologists tested only one technique, the results indicate that using that technique results in better focus and attention.

Eliminate.

D. How much time elapsed between volunteers' meditation training and their participation in the number-detection activity

The answer to this question has no effect on the strength of the argument. After all, regardless of how much time elapsed, it remains the case that those who had undergone the training detected more numbers. Even if years had elapsed, it still appears that the training worked. It could be that the training has permanent effects

Eliminate.

E. To what extent the volunteers' belief in the meditation technique's effectiveness influenced their performance when attempting to pick out the numbers

This choice is interesting.

As discussed above, the psychologists basically observed a correlation between undergoing meditation training and being better at detectng the numbers and concluded that the first causes the second.

So, what if the answer to this question is "to a great extent"?

In that case, the volunteers who underwent the training may have detected more numbers because of their belief in the technique's effectiveness even if the training itself had no effect. So, the answer "to a great extent" weakens the case for the conclusion by indicating that the fact there was a correlation between the training and detecting more numbers may not mean that the training enabled volunteers to detect numbers better.

On the other hand, if the answer is "to no extent," then the answer strengthens the argument by serving to rule out the possibility that all that was going on was the the volunteers' belief in the technique's effectiveness was somehow helping them to focus.

So, it would be helpful to know the answer to this question.

Keep.

Correct answer:  E

sayan640 · Answer

MartyMurray   gmatknight   gmatophobia , Could you please provide your explanation why B is incorrect and E is correct ?

Posted from my mobile device

sachi-in · Answer

Summary  : 
Premise: Psychologists training volunteers in a meditation technique on minimizing distractions -->
The volunteers who had undergone meditation training much better than the others at detecting the numbers.

Conclusion  : practicing the concentration required by the meditation technique improves overall focus and attention.

Prethinking  :
We need something that strengthens the link, so first let's think what is the weak link ?
the weak link is our ability to question :    Does   meditation    equals    increased concentration   ?   
 weakner  : It's possible people who were taught meditation already were better at concentration -   Bias in medidation learner pool & not skill imparted by meditation the real reason - one possible cause

A. By what specific methods the psychologists trained the volunteers in the meditation technique - doesn't destroy any weaker

B. What proportion of the numbers the volunteers who had undergone the meditation training were able to detect - doesn't destroy any weaker (  imagine an analogous scenario where surgery alleviated your pain and doctors conclude that surgery reduce the pain. If the patients are able to detect that they have undergone surgery will it affect wheather the surgery actually allieviates pain ? No, but yes if they believe that surgery removes pain then they may be predisposed to thinking that surgery removes pain.  )

C. Why the psychologists tested only one meditation technique that centers on minimizing distractions - doesn't destroy any weaker ( how does one technique matter ? if they teach 10 techniques and even one is effective it means the whole superset meditation improves concentration )

D. How much time elapsed between volunteers' meditation training and their participation in the number-detection activity - doesn't destroy any weaker

E. To what extent the volunteers' belief in the meditation technique's effectiveness influenced their performance when attempting to pick out the numbers - This reasoning is very similar to our prethinking,  it's  not the skill imparted by meditation  but rather  belief in meditation  that led to increased focus  - hence knowing an answer to it will remove one of the doubts - it's one of the strengthner

Aim4gmat2024 · Answer

I reduced the options to B and E

B. If we had known what was his focus levels prior, then B could have been the answer, as it would tell how much he had improved . That information would have helped assess the argument

E. This option talks about the positive influence of the meditation, and the positive belief it gave to the person.

Ex: there are two options
1. Meditation actually increasing his focus
2. Meditation made him believe he could perform better

Knowing the above could help in assessment. And option E is a little better than B

egmat · Answer

sachi-in  - good prethinking and a well-formatted solution.

Diwen2000 · Answer

My reasoning is
E: 
If  to a great extent , then practicing does improve overall focus and attention through enhanced self-efficacy belief.
If  to no extent , then practicing improves overall focus and attention through other means.

Therefore, E is not helpful.
Where am I wrong?

Blackcrow1972 · Answer

The psychologists concluded that the improvement in performance among those who practiced meditation was due to the meditation training itself. However, this conclusion assumes that other factors, such as placebo effects or the volunteers' belief in the meditation technique's effectiveness, did not play a role in their superior performance.

If the volunteers who underwent meditation training believed strongly in its effectiveness, this belief could have influenced their performance independently of any actual improvement in focus caused by the training. Understanding the role of this belief would help assess whether the psychologists’ conclusion is valid or whether other factors could explain the results.

Nitish1103 · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray ,

This came in my official practice mock test today. I was mainly confused between A and E. While i agree with the reasoning of E being the correct answer. I was stuck on A also because , A states that " By what specific methods the psychologists trained the volunteers in the meditation technique"   and what if the method used in the meditation technique was exactly "picking out numbers from a stream of distracting letters that appeared on a video screen.? That would mean it was not the practice of concentration but the fact that they had done the same test before which lead to their better performance of these volunteers.

But maybe i got confused on a specific possibility in a broad option.

MartyMurray · Answer

That's an interesting question, Nitish.

That said, my take is that, knowing a little about meditation, we can be pretty sure that a meditation technique would not involve "picking out numbers from a stream of distracting letters that appeared on a video screen."

Also, it doesn't make sense that psychologists would conclude that meditation helped with picking out the numbers if the meditation itself involved picking out numbers. What a ridiculous experiment that would be.

Finally, the passage says that the participants first trained in the meditation technique and "then" performed the task with the stream of numbers and letters. The use of "then" indicates that they had not been performing that task all along.

All told, we can be confident that, in analyzing choice (A), we do not have to consider the possibility that training in the meditation technique involved picking out numbers from a stream of distracting letters.

qianxia5 · Answer

Hi Marty: 
I have also sticked with A because:

If the answer of A turned out to be: " The methods of psycologists used turned out not involving concentration, instead the method outcome is only enhance minimzing distractions" then the psycologists argument will turn out to be weaken due to the invalid assumption made which draw an equal line between minimizing distraction with concentration"

In this case, how would you eliminate option A?

MartyMurray · Answer

Let's consider (A):

A. By what specific methods the psychologists trained the volunteers in the meditation technique

Notice that (A) is not about "the meditation technique" itself. Rather, (A) is about the "methods" used by the psychologists to train the volunteers.

Regardless of what methods the psychologists used to train the volunteers, the meditation technique itself could involve concentration.

So, regardless of what methods the psychologists used, it makes sense for the author to conclude from the fact that the trainees were better at picking out the numbers that "practicing the concentration required by the meditation technique improves overall focus and attention."

Rickooreoisb · Answer

Could the time gap between meditation training and the test (Option D) help determine whether the training actually caused the improved performance?

If the test happened immediately after training, maybe the meditation group was already better, so training might not be the cause.

If the test happened long after training, sustained improvement might suggest real training effects.

MartyMurray  - need your help on this

MartyMurray · Answer

The training took place over the course of three months. So, even if the number-detection activity occurred immediately after the training, there's no reason to believe that the members of the meditation group were "already better." After all, at that point, they had had three months to improve through the training their ability to minimize distractions.

Also, if the activity occurred long after the training, without making up an unsupported story, we have no clear reason to believe that they would have continued to improve their focusing skills in the intervening time or, alternatively, that the effects of the training would have faded.

So, we have no reason to believe that the amount of time between the training and the activity made any difference either way.

Thus, having the information described by (D) would not be helpful.

Psychologists spent three months training volunteers in a meditation

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

Psychologists spent three months training volunteers in a meditation

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