The changes cause a lack of substance.
The lack of substance results in short lived books.
The culture-driven changes in children’s books have also made those books more humorous, simpler, and narrower in subject matter.
A
The inclusion of humorous material and a narrower focus detract from the substance of a children’s book.
B
The substance of a children’s book is important to its longevity.
C
Children of the computer generation cannot concentrate on long, unbroken sections of prose.
D
Children judge books primarily on the basis of graphic design.
E
The lack of substance of a children’s book is unlikely to be important to its popularity.
Note: J.Y. says "sleepiness" instead of "sleeplessness" for answer choice (E). While his 'verbal typo' is wrong, the answer given is still right.
Histamine causes certain allergy symptoms.
Antihistamines can reduce these allergy symptoms by blocking the action of histamine.
Antihistamines also have other effects. One of those effects is drowsiness.
Histamine doesn’t play any role in how colds produce symptoms.
A
Pollen and other allergens do not cause colds.
B
Colds are more difficult to treat than allergies.
C
Antihistamines, when taken alone, are ineffective against congestion caused by colds.
D
The sleeplessness that sometimes accompanies allergies can be effectively treated with antihistamines.
E
Any effect antihistamines may have in reducing cold symptoms does not result from blocking the action of histamine.
Note: J.Y. says "sleepiness" instead of "sleeplessness" for answer choice (D). While his 'verbal typo' is wrong, the explanation given is still right.
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.