Self-study
In a study, pairs of trained dogs were placed side by side and given a command such as "sit." After both obeyed the command, one dog was given a treat while its partner was given no reward at all. ████ █████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███████ █████████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that dogs are averse to being treated unfairly. This is due to a study where dogs were placed in pairs, and when both dogs in the pair obeyed commands but only one dog received a treat, the unrewarded dogs eventually stopped obeying commands.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the unrewarded dogs' behavior came from noticing the difference between how they were treated and the other dog was treated, and not just from a lack of positive reinforcement or a lack of motivation. In other words, the author's hypothesis suggests that if both dogs had received no treats, they might have both kept obeying commands, because they were being treated fairly compared to each other. But if they both would have started disobeying due to a lack of rewards, despite being treated fairly, this would undermine the hypothesis.
21.
Which one of the following █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████
a
Were dogs who ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ███████ ███████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ████████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
Knowing what might have made dogs more inclined to obey prior to the study doesn't tell us anything about what makes them less inclined to obey, and certainly doesn't tell us whether dogs can recognize fairness.
Failed alternate explanation
Failed alternate explanation
Weaken Qs: Answers that try to introduce an alternate explanation, but fall short, or try to explain a different phenomenon.
Strengthen Qs: Answers that try to eliminate an alternate explanation, but fall short, or try to eliminate an explanation for a different phenomenon.
b
Is there a ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███ █████
This would be useful in evaluating the argument. If both dogs started disobeying after not receiving treats, this wouldn't necessarily make the author's hypothesis wrong, but it would suggest that disobedience might come simply from not having rewards, not necessarily out of a sense of fairness or unfairness compared to how other dogs are treated.
Plausibility
Plausibility
Presenting evidence that corroborates (in Strengthen) or conflicts (in Weaken) with the author's hypothesized explanation or the predictions that follow from that explanation.
c
Were dogs who ████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ █████ ███████
Irrelevant. Even if those dogs were used twice, the fact still stands that they stopped obeying commands when they didn’t receive a reward. We need to evaluate the author’s explanation for why this happened.
d
Were there any █████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ███ ███ █████ █ ██████ ██████ ████ ████████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
We're trying to evaluate the hypothesis that dogs are averse to being treated unfairly. It doesn't help us to know whether the rewarded dogs became more inclined to obey commands--we just want to know why the unrewarded dogs stopped obeying commands.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.
e
How many repetitions ████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████
Irrelevant. We don’t care how long it took for the dogs to stop obeying commands, just why they stopped obeying. Knowing the number of repetitions wouldn't tell us whether a sense of unfair treatment caused this behavior or not.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.