"Surprising" Phenomenon
A new car was much less safe than any other car previously available, yet most customers increased their safety after buying it.
Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that explains how a relatively unsafe car can increase driver safety. The explanation must show how two opposite qualities can coexist, likely through the intermediary—the driver. It may state that drivers are more likely to be careful on the roads knowing their vehicle is unsafe, or that all the customers owned even less-safe vehicles before.
A
The company surveyed potential customers and discovered that most of them were more concerned about cost than about safety.
We don’t care what people cared about when buying the car. We need to know why they were safer on the roads after buying it.
B
The company could significantly increase the car’s safety without dramatically increasing its production cost.
We’re not interested in what the company could do. We’re interested in the drivers.
C
Most people who bought the new car were probably unaware that it is much less safe than other cars.
If customers were unaware that the car was relatively unsafe, then we have no reason to believe they would’ve driven more carefully than before. This doesn’t resolve anything.
D
Many households that previously could afford only one car can now afford two.
Why would having two cars in their household make a driver safer? This doesn’t resolve the paradox—that driving a relatively unsafe car made these drivers safer.
E
Most people who bought the new car previously travelled by bicycle or motorcycle, which are less safe than the new car.
Even though the car in question is unsafe compared to other cars, it’s a big step up safety-wise from bicycles and motorcycles. Hence, customers who previously rode bicycles or motorcycles became safer on the roads once they bought the new car.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Cars sold more frequently and for higher prices when their defects were listed.
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains something about consumer behavior. The explanation must result in consumers responding more favorably to listings that report defects than to listings that only give brief descriptions. The explanation must also provide some rationale for why this is, which likely has to do with consumer trust.
A
Most people are skeptical of the descriptions that accompany items when they are put up for auction online.
We need a comparative aspect. This tells us people are skeptical of descriptions, but we don’t know how they respond to lists of defects.
B
People are likely to assume that a car with no reported defects has been maintained more attentively and is therefore in better overall condition.
If this were true, people would presumably prefer to buy the cars without reported defects. The stimulus tells us the opposite is true.
C
Prospective buyers are likely to overlook mention of defects buried in a detailed description of the condition of an object they are considering purchasing.
According to the stimulus, all the descriptions are brief. We don’t care about detailed descriptions.
D
Listing defects in a description of an item tends to lead people to assume that no major defect has gone unmentioned.
When defects are reported, people assume they’re getting the whole picture. When details aren’t reported, people may assume something about the car’s condition is being hidden, which makes them less inclined to make a purchase.
E
With thousands of cars for sale, prospective buyers are unlikely to read detailed descriptions of more than a small fraction of them.
Like (C), we don’t have detailed descriptions in the stimulus. We’re talking about brief descriptions and lists of defects.