In an experiment, volunteers witnessed a simulated crime. After they witnessed the simulation the volunteers were first questioned by a lawyer whose goal was to get them to testify inaccurately about the event. They were then cross-examined by another lawyer whose goal was to cause them to correct the inaccuracies in their testimony. The witnesses who gave testimony containing fewer inaccurate details than most of the other witnesses during the first lawyer’s questioning also gave testimony containing a greater number of inaccurate details than most of the other witnesses during cross-examination.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the witnesses who gave less inaccurate details than usual at first end up giving more inaccurate details than usual later?

Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why witnesses who gave relatively accurate accounts when prompted to give inaccuracies ended up giving relatively inaccurate accounts when prompted to answer accurately. We don’t know whether these witnesses changed their testimonies at all the second time around, or if the rest of the group simply started amending their erroneous details. But a hypothesis that points to either of these explanations would help explain the situation.

A
These witnesses were more observant about details than were most of the other witnesses.
This would explain why the first group gave more accurate testimonies the first time around. But why would that change when they gave their testimonies a second time? We need something to reconcile that discrepancy.
B
These witnesses had better memories than did most of the other witnesses.
Like (A), this answer choice explains why the first group gave more accurate testimonies the first time around. We need to know why their testimonies were relatively inaccurate the second time.
C
These witnesses were less inclined than most of the other witnesses to be influenced in their testimony by the nature of the questioning.
These witnesses didn’t change much about their testimonies the second time around. So, while they weren’t led towards inaccuracies on the first go as the other witnesses were, they also weren’t led towards accurate details the second time.
D
These witnesses were unclear about the details at first but then began to remember more accurately as they answered questions.
This could be true, but it doesn’t reconcile the fact these witnesses were more accurate than others the first time around and less accurate the second. We need something comparative between the two groups.
E
These witnesses tended to give testimony containing more details than most of the other witnesses.
It doesn’t matter how detailed their testimonies were. We need to know why those details were relatively accurate on first examination and relatively inaccurate on second examination.

29 comments

Politician: The current crisis in mathematics education must be overcome if we are to remain competitive in the global economy. Alleviating this crisis requires the employment of successful teaching methods. No method of teaching a subject can succeed that does not get students to spend a significant amount of time outside of class studying that subject.

Summary

The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Notable Valid Inferences

If we are to remain competitive in the global economy, we must get students to study math outside of class.

If we are to overcome the crisis in math education, we must get students to study math outside of class.

If students don’t spend a significant amount of time studying math outside of class, then we won’t remain competitive in the global economy.

A
If students spend a significant amount of time outside of class studying mathematics, the current crisis in mathematics education will be overcome.

This could be false. Spending a significant time outside of class studying math is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition, of resolving the crisis.

B
The current crisis in mathematics education will not be overcome unless students spend a significant amount of time outside of class studying mathematics.

This must be true. As shown in the diagram, by chaining conditional claims, we see that studying math outside of class is a necessary condition of overcoming the crisis

C
Few subjects are as important as mathematics to the effort to remain competitive in the global economy.

This could be false. The stimulus does not talk about the relative importance of other subjects.

D
Only if we succeed in remaining competitive in the global economy will students spend a significant amount of time outside of class studying mathematics.

This could be false. Remaining competitive in the global economy is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition, of spending a lot of time studying math outside of class.

E
Students’ spending a significant amount of time outside of class studying mathematics would help us to remain competitive in the global economy.

This could be false. We know that spending lots of time outside of class studying math is a necessary condition of remaining competitive. However, that’s not logically the same as “helping.”


16 comments