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.
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.
A
derive a general conclusion about all members of a group from facts known about representative members of that group
B
establish the validity of one explanation for a phenomenon by excluding alternative explanations
C
support, by describing a suitable mechanism, the hypothesis that a certain phenomenon can occur
D
conclude that members of two groups are likely to share a certain ability because of other characteristics they share
E
demonstrate that a general rule applies in a particular case
Paul: I disagree. Some students forced to perform community service have enjoyed it so much that they subsequently actually volunteer to do something similar. In such cases, the policy can clearly be said to have fostered a habit of volunteering.