- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:00 am
#72961
Complete Question Explanation
Evaluate the Argument, CE. The correct answer choice is (B).
In this stimulus we are told that in a study, when two dogs are given commands, and only one is rewarded afterwards for obedience with a treat, over time the unrewarded dog stops obeying while the rewarded dog continues to obey. This establishes a positive correlation in the study between rewards and obedience, from which the author draws the causal conclusion that the unrewarded dog stops obeying because they don't like being treated unfairly.
This certainly ascribes some high-level thinking to the dogs, and the author overlooks at least a few possible alternate causes for the change in behavior, most of which don't require dogs to be so concerned with justice and fair play.
We are then faced with an Evaluate the Argument question, which is fairly rare on the test. These questions require us to ask ourselves what crucial information is missing from the argument. In other words, what is it that we need to know in order to determine whether this argument is good or not? The correct answer will ask the right question, and application of the Variance Test will help us prove it. That test is about supplying opposing answers (pairs like yes/no, some/none, true/false) to any contenders to see if one such answer weakens the argument while the other strengthens it.
In this case, since the argument is causal, we should ask ourselves, and be looking for, one of the standard causal questions: is there possibly an alternate cause? If the cause is removed, does the effect go away? Could the cause and effect be reversed? Was the study valid, with reliable data? Any answer that raises one of these questions will be correct.
Answer choice (A): This is an irrelevant question, the answers to which neither strengthen nor weaken the causal conclusion. What the dogs were or were not accustomed to before the test won't tell us anything about why unrewarded dogs obeyed at first and then stopped obeying during the study. Was it because of unfair treatment, or for some other reason?
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This question is asking if the effect (a decline in obedience over time) is present when the cause (unfair treatment) is removed, one of the standard causal evaluate questions. Consider the Variance Test results here: if the answer is Yes, obedience did decline even when neither dog was given a reward, then the decline would not appear to be caused by unfair treatment (since the dogs were treated fairly, i.e. equally, in this case); if the answer is No, there is no decline in obedience when neither dog is rewarded, then fairness (rather than a lack of treats) looks more likely to be the cause of the change, and the argument is strengthened.
Answer choice (C): Your response to this answer should be "so what?" If some dogs were used in other trials and treated differently in those other trials, that would do nothing to help or harm the causal claim here, as it has nothing to do with alternate causes, reversals, cause without effect, or problems with the data (although you would be forgiven for thinking it might have some impact on the validity of the study at first glance. The Variance Test here should reveal the problem with this answer, as neither a Yes nor a No yields a clear strengthen/weaken result. A Yes results only in vague uncertainty - does this matter? - while a No does nothing at all.)
Answer choice (D): Whether the rewarded dogs did or did not become even more inclined to obey (whatever that means - they were already obedient, so does this mean they obeyed faster, or with a better attitude and more tail wagging?), this would tell us nothing about what caused the other dogs to start disobeying.
Answer choice (E): The number of repetitions might matter for determining the strength of whatever caused the change in the unrewarded dogs, but tells us nothing about what the actual cause might be. Try two numbers for the Variance Test - 1 repetition vs 100 repetitions. Does either answer weaken or strengthen the claim that "unfairness" is the cause? As soon as you realize that 1 repetition tells you nothing, this answer is a loser.
Evaluate the Argument, CE. The correct answer choice is (B).
In this stimulus we are told that in a study, when two dogs are given commands, and only one is rewarded afterwards for obedience with a treat, over time the unrewarded dog stops obeying while the rewarded dog continues to obey. This establishes a positive correlation in the study between rewards and obedience, from which the author draws the causal conclusion that the unrewarded dog stops obeying because they don't like being treated unfairly.
This certainly ascribes some high-level thinking to the dogs, and the author overlooks at least a few possible alternate causes for the change in behavior, most of which don't require dogs to be so concerned with justice and fair play.
We are then faced with an Evaluate the Argument question, which is fairly rare on the test. These questions require us to ask ourselves what crucial information is missing from the argument. In other words, what is it that we need to know in order to determine whether this argument is good or not? The correct answer will ask the right question, and application of the Variance Test will help us prove it. That test is about supplying opposing answers (pairs like yes/no, some/none, true/false) to any contenders to see if one such answer weakens the argument while the other strengthens it.
In this case, since the argument is causal, we should ask ourselves, and be looking for, one of the standard causal questions: is there possibly an alternate cause? If the cause is removed, does the effect go away? Could the cause and effect be reversed? Was the study valid, with reliable data? Any answer that raises one of these questions will be correct.
Answer choice (A): This is an irrelevant question, the answers to which neither strengthen nor weaken the causal conclusion. What the dogs were or were not accustomed to before the test won't tell us anything about why unrewarded dogs obeyed at first and then stopped obeying during the study. Was it because of unfair treatment, or for some other reason?
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This question is asking if the effect (a decline in obedience over time) is present when the cause (unfair treatment) is removed, one of the standard causal evaluate questions. Consider the Variance Test results here: if the answer is Yes, obedience did decline even when neither dog was given a reward, then the decline would not appear to be caused by unfair treatment (since the dogs were treated fairly, i.e. equally, in this case); if the answer is No, there is no decline in obedience when neither dog is rewarded, then fairness (rather than a lack of treats) looks more likely to be the cause of the change, and the argument is strengthened.
Answer choice (C): Your response to this answer should be "so what?" If some dogs were used in other trials and treated differently in those other trials, that would do nothing to help or harm the causal claim here, as it has nothing to do with alternate causes, reversals, cause without effect, or problems with the data (although you would be forgiven for thinking it might have some impact on the validity of the study at first glance. The Variance Test here should reveal the problem with this answer, as neither a Yes nor a No yields a clear strengthen/weaken result. A Yes results only in vague uncertainty - does this matter? - while a No does nothing at all.)
Answer choice (D): Whether the rewarded dogs did or did not become even more inclined to obey (whatever that means - they were already obedient, so does this mean they obeyed faster, or with a better attitude and more tail wagging?), this would tell us nothing about what caused the other dogs to start disobeying.
Answer choice (E): The number of repetitions might matter for determining the strength of whatever caused the change in the unrewarded dogs, but tells us nothing about what the actual cause might be. Try two numbers for the Variance Test - 1 repetition vs 100 repetitions. Does either answer weaken or strengthen the claim that "unfairness" is the cause? As soon as you realize that 1 repetition tells you nothing, this answer is a loser.
