Okay so the stimulus is telling us about some psychological studies, where subjects were told to read something and that whatever it was they read caused them to develop some beliefs. Then, the researchers told them that the statements they had read were false. Counterintuitively most of the people who had formed these beliefs stuck with them, even after being told that the statements that led to them were false. This is the phenomenon that is seeking an explanation, and the journal proposes that this is because once humans acquire a belief they tend to hold on to that belief.
We have the weaken this argument, so we are really looking for another reason why these people might have stuck to their original belief that is not the result of some innate tendency to maintain ones beliefs.
Answer choice (A) really does not tell us anything. Whether the beliefs were correct or not is irrelevant to the point at issue. We are wondering why these people continued to believe they were correct even when told the opposite.
Answer choice (B) is really more an opinion than anything else. Who cares if it's unrealistic?
Answer choice (C) is similar, who cares if the statements were misleading. The participants formed beliefs, those beliefs were then challenged, and the participants maintained them nevertheless. Whether the original basis for those beliefs was actually misleading is irrelevant.
Answer choice (D) is the correct answer. If the subjects had acquired confirmation of the beliefs before being told the original statements were false, they would not need the original statements to maintain the belief. There would be another support structure for the beliefs that they developed and the original statements could fall away without a problem.
Answer choice (E) again is just totally irrelevant. Their skepticism does not actually matter because we are told that they did in fact form beliefs.
The statements above provide some support for each of the following EXCEPT:
We have a Most Strongly Supported EXCEPT question. That means the four wrong answers will be strongly supported, and the correct answer will not. To be more precise, the question stem actually indicates that the four wrong answers will have “some support.” So they might not even need to be strongly supported – as long as the answer has even some support, it’s wrong. The correct answer will not have any support. If you think back to the spectrum of support, the correct answer will be anywhere from “merely consistent with” the stimulus, to anti-supported.
The graphical illustrations mathematics teachers use enable students to learn geometry more easily by providing them with an intuitive understanding of geometric concepts, which makes it easier to acquire the ability to manipulate symbols for the purpose of calculation.
This tells us that the drawings math teachers use help students learn geometry more easily. How? It gives them an intuitive understanding of the concepts, which makes it easier to use symbols for calculations. So drawings are good for teaching geometry.
Illustrating algebraic concepts graphically would be equally effective pedagogically, even though the deepest mathematical understanding is abstract, not imagistic.
Drawings would be equally helpful for teaching algebraic concepts. (Equally effective as what? As teaching geometric concepts.) However, the deepest understanding doesn’t seem reachable by drawings (images).
The stimulus isn’t giving us too much to keep track of. Drawings are good for teaching geometry. They’re also good for teaching algebra. The drawings don’t give the deepest understanding, however.
Let’s look for 4 answers that have support – these are the wrong answers, since it’s an except question. The answer that does not have support is correct.
Answer Choice (A) Pictorial understanding is not the final stage of mathematical understanding.
This is supported, since the deepest understanding is not based on images. “Pictorial” understanding is another way to describe understanding based on images. “Final stage” of understanding is another way to say “deepest.”
If you’re uncomfortable with immediately making these connections, that’s OK. But keep that same level of skepticism for all other answers. If you picked this answer over the correct answer, you should ask yourself why you thought the other answer had more support than this one. In addition, keep in mind that the wrong answers just need some support from the stimulus – they don’t have to be proven true. The “deepest” stage of understanding is close enough to “the final stage.” If you’re not at the deepest level of understanding, would it make any sense to say that you’re already at the final stage of understanding? No. And if you understand something at the deepest level – there’s no further level to get to – would it make any sense to say that there’s some other stage of understanding that you still have yet to reach? No – you’re at the final stage.
Correct Answer Choice (B) People who are very good at manipulating symbols do not necessarily have any mathematical understanding.
This has multiple features that can help us recognize it’s not supported. First, it starts by talking about “people who are very good at manipulating symbols.” Do we know anything about these people? There’s nothing in the stimulus about those people. We do know that being good at manipulating symbols for calculation is connected to learning geometry more easily. So perhaps this would have been a better answer if it had said that people who are very good at manipulating symbols (for the purpose of calculation) have an easier time learning geometry than people who aren’t as good. But that’s not what it says.
Second, this answer says that a group of people does not have “any mathematical understanding.” Where in the stimulus does it suggest anything about who lacks understanding? All we have are relative statements about what helps understanding geometry and algebra, and about how drawings do not give the deepest understanding. But the idea of “no understanding at all” is an absolute claim that the stimulus does not support.
This answer is trying to tempt you by saying something that sounds very reasonable based on real world understanding. There are probably a lot of people who are good at manipulating symbols, but aren’t good at math. Lots of people play Tetris or Candy Crush, or are very good at drawing, but aren’t good at math. But the question is whether this answer choice has support from the stimulus. None of the statements in the stimulus either alone or in combination support this answer.
Answer Choice (C) Illustrating geometric concepts graphically is an effective teaching method.
This is basically a restatement of the first sentence. So it’s supported.
Answer Choice (D) Acquiring the ability to manipulate symbols is part of the process of learning geometry.
This is supported by the language, which makes it easier to acquire the ability to manipulate the symbols for the purpose of calculation. This part was presented as part of an explanation for how drawings help students learn geometry more easily. If the ability to manipulate symbols for calculating is how drawing helps students learn geometry more easily, that suggests such manipulation is part of the learning. If it wasn’t part of the learning, then how would getting better at it help students learn geometry?
Now you might be thrown off if you interpret the answer as saying that the ability to manipulate symbols is necessary to the process of learning geometry. You might be thinking, “Yeah, I know it can help you learn geometry. But what if there’s a way to learn geometry without manipulating symbols? Something can help you learn, but not be necessary, right?”
To that I have two responses.
First, is saying that manipulating symbols is a “part” of learning asserting that it’s necessary?
Shooting three pointers is a part of playing basketball. Is this saying that shooting three pointers is necessary to play basketball?
Television is a part of living in today’s society. Does that mean television is necessary in order to live in today’s society?
Learning Latin phrases such as “arguendo” and “a priori” is part of the process of studying law in law school. Does that mean you need to learn Latin phrases in order to study law in law school?
Is it possible that X can be a part of the process of learning Y, even though it’s not necessary to learn Y?
I’m not asking for a definitive answer, but suggesting that the issue is not as clear-cut as you might think. These examples should counsel against interpreting “a part of” as “necessary to.”
Second, ask yourself whether you think this answer has less support than the correct answer. Are you being as critical of the correct answer and whatever support you think it has as you are of this answer?
Answer Choice (E) There are strategies that can be effectively employed in the teaching both of algebra and of geometry.
We know that drawings can be effective in teaching geometry and algebra. So there are “strategies” that can effectively be used to teach those subjects – techniques involving drawings or illustrations. This is an example of reasoning by generalization. The stimulus provides a specific instance of a strategy (graphical illustrations) that effectively aids in teaching geometry and algebra. From this specific instance, (E) infers a broader generalization that there are effective strategies for teaching both these subjects.
Which one of the following can most reasonably be concluded on the basis of the information above?
This is a Most Strongly Supported question, because we’re looking for what can “most reasonably be concluded” on the basis of the stimulus.
All social systems are based upon a division of economic roles. The values of a social system are embodied in the prestige accorded to persons who fill various economic roles.
This sounds like the beginning of a sociology textbook. Social systems are divided into economic roles – food producer, teacher, scientist, delivery driver, LSAT instructor, etc. The values of a social system are reflected in the prestige that people in different roles have. For example, in our modern social system, a doctor has more prestige than a grocery store clerk. A lawyer has more prestige than an LSAT instructor, sadly. This says something about the values of our social system.
It is therefore unsurprising that, for any social system, the introduction of labor-saving technology that makes certain economic roles obsolete will tend to undermine the values in that social system.
Think about ChatGPT and developments in AI. These might make certain roles obsolete – copywriting, translating, even some roles involving legal analysis or medical diagnoses. And if these roles go away, apparently the values of the social system will be undermined. I’m not sure that’s a logically valid conclusion, but that doesn’t matter on a Most Strongly Supported question. We should just accept that, for any social system, if technology makes certain roles obsolete, that will undermine the social system’s values.
The stimulus doesn’t lead up to any particular conclusion, so let’s jump into the answers and look for something that is most strongly supported via process of elimination.
Answer Choice (A) Social systems will have unchanging values if they are shielded from technological advancement.
The stimulus doesn’t tell us what will happen if a society does not undergo technological change. We do know that if technological change makes certain roles obsolete, that will undermine values. But what happens if technological change doesn’t happen at all? We don’t know.
If you picked this answer, you’re likely falling for the oldest trick in the book: mixing up a sufficient condition and a necessary condition. Technological change that makes roles obsolete is sufficient to lead to a change in values. But that doesn’t mean technological change is necessary for a change in values. Values can change for other reasons, such as social movements or religions.
Answer Choice (B) No type of technology will fail to undermine the values in a social system.
The stimulus doesn’t suggest that every kind of technology will undermine values. We know that it’s possible for some technologies to undermine values (via making certain roles obsolete). But we cannot hastily generalize to the conclusion that all technologies will undermine values. For example, maybe there’s a new hi-tech glove developed that helps crack your knuckles more easily. That might not put anyone out of a job. And if it doesn’t, this tech won’t necessarily have an impact on social values.
Correct Answer Choice (C) A social system whose values are not susceptible to change would not be one in which technology can eliminate economic roles.
Short explanation: (C) is the contrapositive of a claim in the stimulus.
Long explanation: This is a tough correct answer, because it doesn’t sound like anything an actual person would ever say on the basis of the stimulus. In a timed situation, it’s easier to pick (C) through process of elimination than through complete understanding of why it’s supported.
Remember, the stimulus told us:
...for any social system, the introduction of labor-saving technology that makes certain economic roles obsolete will tend to undermine the values in that social system.
What if there is a society whose values can never be undermined by anything? I know it doesn’t make sense based on your understanding of real life societies. But just imagine it.
In this kind of society – where values can never be undermined – is it possible for technology to make economic roles obsolete? Well, if technology did come along that made certain roles obsolete, then according to the stimulus, that technology would tend to undermine the social system’s values. But we’re imagining a society where values can never be undermined. So it wouldn’t make sense for technology to be able to make roles obsolete in this society.
If it helps, you can break down the last sentence as a conditional statement:
In any society, if technology makes some economic roles obsolete, then the values of the society are sometimes undermined.
You can kick up the condition “in any society” to the domain – this is the set of things the conditional applies to: societies.
Domain: All societies
technology makes some economic roles obsolete → the values are sometimes undermined.
What’s the contrapositive of this? Switch both sides and negate:
Domain: All societies
the values cannot be undermined → technology cannot make economic roles obsolete.
This is why (C) is supported. If a society’s values can’t change, that means they can’t be undermined, which triggers the contrapositive. That means technology can’t eliminate economic roles in that society.
Answer Choice (D) A technologically advanced society will place little value on the prestige associated with an economic role.
This is very tempting. If you chose (D), you probably reasoned as follows: We know that labor-saving technology will render economic roles obsolete which in turn will undermine the values of that society. It follows that a technologically advanced society will have rendered much or even most of their economic roles obsolete. Hence, that society will have undermined much or even most of their values. Hence, that society will place little value on the prestige associated with an economic role.
That line of reasoning is faulty for too many reasons. I’ll just spotlight three.
First, it does not follow that a technologically advanced society will have rendered much or even most of their economic roles obsolete. A technologically advanced society surely will have rendered much or perhaps most of their previous economic roles obsolete. But new roles will arise. For example, our society has rendered the hard labor associated with farming mostly obsolete which has allowed new roles (climate scientists; rocket engineers; AI programmers) to arise.
Second, focus on the phrase “little value.” We know that technological change can undermine a society’s values, if that change makes certain roles obsolete. But the stimulus doesn’t suggest anything about an absolute amount of value such as “little” or “a lot” or “low” or “high.” Perhaps a technologically advanced society places less value on one thing – let’s say, physical strength – and more value on another – typing speed. And a change in technology, if it eliminates economic roles, might increase or decrease the value associated with physical strength or typing speed. But we don’t have enough to say this society places “little” value on physical strength or any other thing.
A third issue with this answer is that it refers to a society placing value on prestige. But the stimulus only stated that the values of a social system are “embodied in the prestige” of various roles. Having the values of society reflected in the prestige of a particular role such as a doctor or lawyer is unrelated to the idea of valuing prestige itself. For example, a society in which doctors are highly prestigious reflects the society’s valuing of saving lives, healing wounds, delivering babies, etc. But that doesn’t mean this society places value on prestige. Prestige is just the byproduct of a society’s values.
Answer Choice (E) A technological innovation that is implemented in a social system foreign to the one in which it was developed will tend to undermine the foreign social system.
This is tempting based on our own sense of what has often happened in history. When Europeans brought guns and steel armor to the New World, that changed Native American societies. But the stimulus never suggests anything about what happens when we bring technology into a foreign social system. Will technology automatically make certain jobs obsolete in a foreign social system? We don’t know.
Many technological innovations may simply fit neatly into an existing social system, even if that social system is foreign to the one in which that innovation was developed. For example, if we discover alien technology that allows us to fall asleep 5 minutes faster every day, that wouldn’t necessarily change much about our society. No one’s job is threatened by this technology, and we could easily integrate the technology into our daily lives without significant change. The mere fact that this sleep-aiding technology was developed in an alien society does not mean that it will undermine our own social system.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?
This is a Main Conclusion question.
More women than men suffer from Alzheimer’s disease–a disease that is most commonly contracted by elderly persons.
More women than men suffer from Alzheimer’s. That seems to be an interesting fact – a phenomenon.
This discrepancy has often been attributed to women’s longer life span…
The next line gives us another person’s position: “this discrepancy,” which is referring to the fact more women than men have Alzheimer’s, is attributed to (or in other words, caused by) women’s longer life span.
Before you keep reading, let’s take time to digest. Alzheimer’s is mainly in older people, and women have more Alzheimer’s than men. One possible explanation for this is the fact that women live longer – so you’d naturally expect more women to have Alzheimer’s, since that’s a disease of older people.
… but this theory may be wrong.
But wait! The author swoops in with “this theory may be wrong.” That’s a disagreement with other people’s position, which means it’s likely to be the author’s conclusion. What does “this” refer to? It’s referring to the hypothesis that the reason there are more women than men with Alzheimer’s is that women live longer. The author’s saying, “No, that’s not the reason.”
Make sure to be precise about translating the author’s conclusion. They’re not saying that Alzheimer’s isn’t found more in women. They’re agreeing that it is found more in women. But they’re disagreeing with the explanation. The author’s saying, “There must be some other reasons besides women living longer that explains why more women than men have Alzheimer’s.” Why should we believe this? Let’s keep reading.
A recent study has shown that prescribing estrogen to women after menopause, when estrogen production in the body decreases, may prevent them from developing the disease. Men’s supply of testosterone may help safeguard them against Alzheimer’s disease because much of it is converted by the body to estrogen, and testosterone levels stay relatively stable into old age.
We’re told about a recent study that has shown that giving estrogen to women after menopause helps prevent them from developing Alzheimer’s. In addition, we know that men’s supply of testosterone can help prevent Alzheimer’s, since testosterone is turned into estrogen as men age. These two points are giving us some evidence that estrogen may be a potential cause of less Alzheimer’s.
That description of estrogen and its potential effect in preventing Alzheimer’s is offered as a premise for why the hypothesis in the first half might be wrong. The reason more women than men have Alzheimer’s might not be women’s longer lifespan, because it could have something to do with estrogen.
Since we’re looking for the Main Conclusion, let’s look for something along the lines of “Women’s longer lifespan might not be the reason there are more women than men who have Alzheimer’s.”
Correct Answer Choice (A) A decrease in estrogen, rather than longer life span, may explain the higher occurrence of Alzheimer’s disease in women relative to men.
This is a good example of how the correct answer to a Main Conclusion Question can bring in some element of the reasoning. We were looking for something that said the longer life span explanation might be wrong. This answer does say that, but also brings in the hypothesis that the author was suggesting might be the true explanation. This ends up being the best answer, because there’s nothing else that simply states that the longer life span explanation might be wrong.
Answer Choice (B) As one gets older, one’s chances of developing Alzheimer’s disease increase.
This answer has nothing to do with the author’s opinion about the longer life span theory, so we can eliminate it. In addition, (B) isn’t supported by the stimulus. We don’t know that there’s an increasing tendency to develop Alzheimer’s. All we know is that Alzheimer’s is most commonly contracted by old people. But maybe the rate of Alzheimer’s just flattens out after a certain age; it doesn’t need to keep increasing.
Answer Choice (C) Women who go through menopause earlier in life than do most other women have an increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease.
Again, we know the conclusion has to do with suggesting the longer life span theory might be wrong. This answer has nothing to do with that. In addition, (C) is not supported by the stimulus. We know that women who go through menopause start producing less estrogen than they did before. But that doesn’t mean the subset of women who go through menopause earlier in life than most others automatically have increased risk of Alzheimer’s. Maybe the people who go through menopause earlier than most others tend to be the ones who start off with the most estrogen production, and so naturally tend to get less Alzheimer’s than most others? We just have no idea what’s true about this group of women.
Answer Choice (D) The conversion of testosterone into estrogen may help safeguard men from Alzheimer’s disease.
This is a tempting answer choice, because it’s something the author agrees with – this was part of the reasoning of the argument. But it was provided as support for the conclusion that the longer life span theory might be wrong. If you picked this answer, then you are saying that the last sentence of the stimulus contains the conclusion. But where would the statement “this theory may be wrong” fit into the argument if you believe the last sentence is the conclusion? It would have no place, because that comment on the longer life span theory being wrong doesn’t help prove anything about estrogen and testosterone. That’s how we can tell the last sentence is not the main conclusion of the argument.
Answer Choice (E) Testosterone is necessary for preventing Alzheimer’s disease in older men.
As with the other wrong answers (B), (C), and (D), this one also doesn’t say anything about how the longer life span theory might be wrong. So it doesn’t capture the author’s conclusion, which was about that theory. And, like (B) and (C), (E) is not supported by the stimulus. We know testosterone “may help safeguard” against Alzheimer’s, but that doesn’t mean it’s necessary to prevent Alzheimer’s in men. Something can be helpful without being necessary.