A problem with answer (c) is that, though the new survey shows correlation, the answer choice does not indicate what sort of correlation it is--e.g., inversely or directly correlated.
Since the argument in the stimulus is that entrepreneurs tend to be overconfident, answer (d) strengthens this correlation because it gives another example where overconfidence is linked with entrepreneurs and makes a claim about direct correlation. In other words, it strengthens the conclusion.
Regardless of whether they continue to do so now--which would strengthen the conclusion even more--the fact that they did so in the past does at least something to strengthen the correlation, which is enough to make (d) the best answer.
Hope that helps!
#14 - Psychologist: We asked 100 entrepreneurs and 100
Just wanted to clarify my thinking on this question. I initially narrowed the answers down to B and D as well.
Let me know if this makes sense.
B) SOME of the odds are known to be AGAINST their attempts being successful. As a second family question the "enormous odds against success" doesn't factor into the answer choice, but rather that the answer choice is assumed to be true.
Therefore, the odds could be 1-100% against them. If they are 11% against them this doesn't seem like it really accounts for being "especially overconfident" if it could be more likely that they win or not. However, if the odds were 100% then this I think would seriously strengthen the argument. I think the "against enormous" odds really makes the reader think the odds are worse when the answer choice actually doesn't say that.
It reminds me of PT 55 Section 3 Question 4. I think the correct answer choice is illogical because given the circumstances of the stimulus the whole problem is a solution cannot be reached and the answer assumes the solution is reached which solves the problem.... it is a weaken question though so the truth of the answer choice is not in doubt although it could possibly "contradict" the circumstances of the stimulus.
However, comparing B to D there isn't really a possible downside to D as there is with B.
The argument precedes off of the basis of correlation rather than causality so further correlation in another case can do nothing but help the psychologists' conclusion..... Furthermore, the "at least some" further weakens answer choice B to D.
Does that make sense or am I just grasping at straws here?
Thanks for any help!
You make some good points. For example, you're right to hone in on the fact that answer choice (B)'s statement that "at least some" of the entrepreneurs surveyed knew of the risks is a pretty weak statement, since we're making generalizations based on what a group of 100 did.
I think that what (B) is getting at is that all 100 entrepreneurs faced really bad odds of succeeding in their businesses. But only some of them ever bothered to get an accurate estimate of what those odds were. So all 100 were facing bad odds, but perhaps only 5 of them actually knew how bad the odds were. If only 5 knew it was a long shot, we still can't be very confident in saying that all 100 are overconfident risk-takers.
As far as your theory about a hypothetical 11 percent failure rate -- you may be overanalyzing the stimulus a bit. We're told in the stimulus that there are "enormous odds against success" for people who start a new business. We don't need to quantify that into a none / some / most / all category. We can just interpret "enormous odds against success" to mean that the chances of succeeding are really, really poor. I can't put a number on this, but I would say that enormous odds of failing would be at least a 51 percent chance of failing, but likely much, much higher, in the range of an 80 or 90 percent failure rate.
Your reasoning for favoring (D) is on point. Keep up the good work, and good luck studying!