A psychological study was conducted to determine

Question

A psychological study was conducted to determine whether people apply different moral standards to themselves and to others. Each subject in the study was allowed to choose between receiving 30 percent or 70 percent of a cash prize and was told that another volunteer would receive the other part of the prize. Each subject could also have a coin toss decide the distribution of the prize at random. The majority of subjects chose to receive 70 percent of the prize, later claiming that they had acted fairly. However, when another subject group was told about the scenario, almost all said that choosing to keep 70 percent of the prize would be unfair. Clearly, most people apply weaker moral standards to themselves than they do to others.

Which of the following is an assumption required by this argument?

(A) At least some subjects were given 30 percent of the prize and felt that it was unfair.
(B) Having a coin toss decide the distribution of the prize at random would have been the most ethical option for the subjects.
(C) At least some subjects who claimed that they had acted fairly in choosing to receive 70 percent of the prize would have said that it was unfair for someone else to do so.
(D) The subjects who were told about the scenario were, on average, more accurate in their moral judgments than the other subjects were.
(E) At least some subjects who had to choose between deciding the distribution of the prize themselves and having a coin toss decide it felt that they had made the only fair choice they could.

Vastavikrahul · Answer

How come option B is not the correct answer
?

egmat · Answer

What's the argument trying to prove?
 
The conclusion is:  "People apply weaker moral standards to themselves than to others." 
In plain English: People are hypocrites - lenient with themselves, strict with others.

How did they test this?
 
Group 1: Made a choice, judged THEMSELVES → "I was fair"
Group 2: Heard about the choice, judged OTHERS → "That's unfair"

The Gap - Why This Study Design is Flawed 
These are TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS of people!

Here's a simple example to show why this matters:

--
 Imagine this study:
 
Research question: "Do people judge their own meat-eating differently than others' meat-eating?"

Group 1: Asked "Is YOUR meat-eating ethical?" → "Yes, perfectly fine"
Group 2: Asked "Is SOMEONE ELSE's meat-eating ethical?" → "No, it's wrong"

Conclusion: "People are hypocrites about meat-eating."

Sounds like solid proof of a double standard, right?

But wait - what if I told you:
• Group 1 was meat-eaters
• Group 2 was vegans

That changes everything.

Meat-eaters think meat is fine - for themselves AND for others.
Vegans think meat is wrong - for themselves AND for others.

Nobody's being hypocritical. You just asked two different groups with two different worldviews.

To prove hypocrisy, you'd need the SAME meat-eater saying: "My burger is fine, but YOUR burger is immoral."
 
THAT would be a double standard.

---

Same problem in our argument.

Group 1 judged themselves. Group 2 judged others. 
Different groups, different answers — that's not hypocrisy, that's just... different people.

To prove the conclusion, you need the SAME person saying "fair for me, unfair for you."

Why C is Correct  
C says: At least some people who said "I was fair" would also say "others doing this is unfair."
Same person + different judgments = hypocrisy proven. Gap closed.

Why B is Wrong  
B says: Coin toss was the most ethical option.

But is that even true? Maybe giving 70% to the OTHER person is most ethical. Maybe something else. We don't know -  and it doesn't matter .

The argument isn't asking "What's objectively fair?"
The argument is asking "Do people judge themselves differently than others?"

Totally different questions.

Whether coin toss is most ethical or not, it doesn't tell us whether the SAME people would judge themselves and others differently.  B is just irrelevant to the conclusion.

PeanutButter429 · Answer

This question does not feel that easy ahahahahaha

WiziusCareers1 · Answer

This logical reasoning question focuses on a  "Moral Hypocrisy"  study. To find the required assumption, we must  bridge the gap  between the behavior of the first group (who took the money) and the judgment of the second group (who observed the scenario).

The Argument Structure
 Evidence:  Group 1 took 70% but said they were fair. Group 2 (different people) said taking 70% is unfair.
 Conclusion:  Most people apply weaker moral standards to themselves than to others.

(A) At least some subjects were given 30 percent of the prize and felt that it was unfair. 
This is  incorrect.  The argument is about the decision-makers and how they justify their own greed versus how they judge others. The  feelings of the "victims" (those receiving 30%) are irrelevant  to proving that the choosers have a double standard.

(B) Having a coin toss decide the distribution of the prize at random would have been the most ethical option for the subjects. 
This is  incorrect . While the coin toss is mentioned as an option, the argument doesn't need it to be the "most ethical" choice to work. The argument only needs there to be a discrepancy between how one's own actions are viewed versus how another's identical actions are viewed.

(C) At least some subjects who claimed that they had acted fairly in choosing to receive 70 percent of the prize would have said that it was unfair for someone else to do so. 
This is the  required assumption . The conclusion claims that "people" (the same individuals) have a double standard. However, the study used two different groups. To conclude that an individual applies weaker standards to themselves than to others, we must assume that if you took a person from Group 1, they would have judged a person from Group 2 as "unfair" for doing the exact same thing. Without this link, we can't claim a double standard exists within the same person; it could just be that the two groups had different people with different moralities.

(D) The subjects who were told about the scenario were, on average, more accurate in their moral judgments than the other subjects were. 
This is  incorrect.  The  argument isn't about who is "right" or "accurate" about what is fair.  It is purely about the inconsistency between judging oneself and judging others. Whether the standard is objectively "accurate" doesn't matter, only that the standard changes depending on who is being judged.

(E) At least some subjects who had to choose between deciding the distribution of the prize themselves and having a coin toss decide it felt that they had made the only fair choice they could. 
This is  incorrect.  This choice describes the  subjective feeling of the participants,  but it doesn't help prove the double standard. Even if they felt it was the "only fair choice," the core of the argument rests on whether they would grant that same "only fair choice" logic to someone else—which is what Choice C addresses.

Sriesh · Answer

Hey,

I have a doubt here. I understand the example provided by you, but in the above question, how are you comparing Non-Vegetarians/Vegans with the two groups? In the question, both groups should want more right? By logic, why would someone prefer 30% over 70% off a price?

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

No, it is not mentioned that both groups should want more."  Each subject in the study was allowed to choose between receiving 30 percent or 70 percent of a cash prize and was told that another volunteer would receive the other part of the prize." They were allowed to choose between 30 and 70. It's not mentioned that they have to choose the 70. It's a choice, and based on selection and interviewing, the claim was given by the author.

A psychological study was conducted to determine

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

A psychological study was conducted to determine

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