An instructor presented two paintings to a class. She said that the first had hung in prestigious museums but the second was produced by an unknown amateur. Each student was asked which painting was better. Everyone selected the first. The instructor later presented the same two paintings in the same order to a different class. This time she said that the first was produced by an unknown amateur but the second had hung in prestigious museums. In this class, everyone said that the second painting was better.

Summary
An instructor showed two paintings to two groups of classes. In the first class, the instructor claimed that the first painting was displayed in prestigious museums while the second painting was painted by an amateur. The students in the first class selected the first painting as the better painting. In the second class, the instructor claimed that the first painting was painted by an amateur while the second painting was displayed in prestigious museums. The students in the second class selected the second painting as the better painting.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
At least some students were affected by the information they were told about the paintings when selecting which painting was better.

A
Most of the students would not like any work of art that they believed to have been produced by an unknown amateur.
We don’t know whether most students would not like any artwork they believed to be produced by an amateur. The stimulus is limited to two paintings. Claiming that most would not like “any” amateur artwork is too extreme.
B
None of the claims that the instructor made about the paintings was true.
We don’t know whether any of the claims made by the instructor were false.
C
Each of the students would like most of the paintings hanging in any prestigious museum.
We don’t know if all of the students would like most paintings displayed in any prestigious museum. The stimulus is limited to two paintings. Claiming that “every” student would like “most” of these paintings is too extreme.
D
In judging the paintings, some of the students were affected by what they had been told about the history of the paintings.
Because the instructor presented the paintings in the same order and flipped the descriptions, at least some students must have been affected by the information they were given about the paintings.
E
Had the instructor presented the paintings without telling the students anything about them, almost all of the students would have judged them to be roughly equal in artistic worth.
We don’t know what would have happened if the instructor did not provide any information to the students about the paintings. We only know the results of the student’s preferences after the information they were told.

35 comments

In a study, infant monkeys given a choice between two surrogate mothers—a bare wire structure equipped with a milk bottle, or a soft, suede-covered wire structure equipped with a milk bottle—unhesitatingly chose the latter. When given a choice between a bare wire structure equipped with a milk bottle and a soft, suede-covered wire structure lacking a milk bottle, they unhesitatingly chose the former.

Summary

A study examined monkeys given a choice between a bare wire structure with a milk bottle or a soft, suede-covered structure with a milk bottle as surrogate mothers. The monkeys chose the soft, suede-covered structure. In a separate experiment where the suede-covered structure did NOT have the milk bottle, the monkeys preferred the bare wire structure that still had the milk bottle.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Monkeys prefer a milk bottle over softness of texture when choosing a fake surrogate mother.

A
Infant monkeys’ desire for warmth and comfort is nearly as strong as their desire for food.

This is anti-supported because the experiment shows that the infant monkeys rejected the comforting structure in favor of one that had food. This does not indicate a near equality in desires.

B
For infant monkeys, suede is a less convincing substitute for their mother’s touch than animal fur would be.

This is unsupported because the experiment never tested suede against real animal fur.

C
For infant monkeys, a milk bottle is a less convincing substitute for their mother’s teat than suede is for their mother’s touch.

This is anti-supported because the monkeys tended to prefer the bare structure with the milk bottle over the suede structure that had no milk. We also don’t know how convincing each structure was at replicating the real thing.

D
For infant monkeys, a milk bottle is an equally convincing substitute for their mother’s teat as suede is for their mother’s touch.

This is anti-supported because the infant monkeys tended to choose the bare structure with the milk bottle more than the suede structure without the milk, indicating an inequality in how convincing each substitute is.

E
Infant monkeys’ desire for food is stronger than their desire for warmth and comfort.

This is strongly supported because when the monkeys had to choose between a bare wire structure with food versus a soft structure that had no food, the monkeys chose the uncovered structure with food.


26 comments