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.
A
Regardless of the truth of what the subjects were later told, the beliefs based on the original statements were, for the most part, correct.
B
It is unrealistic to expect people to keep track of the original basis of their beliefs, and to revise a belief when its original basis is undercut.
C
The statements originally given to the subjects would be highly misleading even if true.
D
Most of the subjects had acquired confirmation of their newly acquired beliefs by the time they were told that the original statements were false.
E
Most of the subjects were initially skeptical of the statements originally given to them.
Sales manager: Last year the total number of meals sold in our company’s restaurants was much higher than it was the year before. Obviously consumers find our meals desirable.
Accountant: If you look at individual restaurants, however, you find that the number of meals sold actually decreased substantially at every one of our restaurants that was in operation both last year and the year before. The desirability of our meals to consumers has clearly decreased, given that this group of restaurants—the only ones for which we have sales figures that permit a comparison between last year and the year before—demonstrates a trend toward fewer sales.
Summary
The company’s restaurants sold more meals last year than the year before. However, all the restaurants that have been open for the last two years sold fewer meals last year than the year before.
Notable Valid Inferences
There must be a restaurant that was open last year but not the year before. This would explain how, in the last two years, all the other restaurants had lower meal sales while the overall number of meals sold increased.
A
The company opened at least one new restaurant in the last two years.
This must be true. We know meal sales for restaurants open during both years decreased, and we also know that overall meal sales increased. This implies there are restaurants which had an increase in meal sales but which were not open during both years.
B
The company’s meals are less competitive than they once were.
This could be false. It could be that several new locations opened and customers who used to go to the existing locations began going to the new locations, which explains the decrease in individual restaurants’ sales. The meals may be more competitive than ever.
C
The quality of the company’s meals has not improved over the past two years.
This could be false. No information in the stimulus suggests the quality of the company’s meals has not improved over the past two years.
D
The prices of the company’s meals have changed over the past two years.
This could be false. No information in the stimulus suggests the price of the company’s meals has changed over the past two years.
E
The market share captured by the company’s restaurants fell last year.
This could be false. No information in the stimulus suggests the company’s market share decreased, especially as they sold more meals than the year before.