Summarize Argument
Market researchers claim to get information from observational research, which involves watching customers while they shop, that they can’t get from traditional survey-based market research.
Notable Assumptions
Market researchers assume it’s not possible to formulate traditional surveys in a way that allows them to gather the sort of information they claim is only obtainable through observational research.
A
Even consumers who are unable to explain their preference for or rejection of particular brands reveal which brands they are considering by picking up and putting down products while they are shopping.
This explains why observational research provides information that survey-based research doesn’t. It allows researchers to observe what products consumers consider before buying, even when consumers can’t provide that information on surveys.
B
Market researchers find that consumers are almost always willing to participate in observational research for which the consumer is paid by the hour.
This is irrelevant. It says nothing about the information participants provide during observational research, and it draws no comparisons between observational research and survey-based research.
C
Consumers are becoming increasingly self-conscious about their buying habits, and some consumers have stopped buying some items that they normally used to buy.
This is a phenomenon market research might explain—it doesn’t explain why observations give researchers some information that surveys don’t. It doesn’t imply consumers are more likely to misrepresent their behavior on surveys than in observational studies.
D
Market researchers say they find data collection more enjoyable in observational research than in survey research, because observational research requires more creative judgment on their part.
This is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how much researchers enjoy observational research unless that enjoyment somehow gives them more information about consumers—and there’s no indication it does.
E
Consumers are more likely to respond to oral surveys than they are to respond to written questionnaires.
Both oral surveys and questionnaires are surveys, and thus belong to traditional non-observational market research. This suggests traditional research might be more effective with oral surveys, but does not address observational research at all.
Summary
Increased humidity levels in a room protects furniture, draperies, and computers from damage caused by air that is too dry. Humidity can also make people feel warmer, helps the body defend itself against viruses, and relieves some skin rashes.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
We should note that, since this is an “except” question, any strongly supported conclusion would be an incorrect answer choice. We’re looking for an answer choice that is unsupported or least supported. Some strongly supported conclusions could include:
Dry air can feel cooler than warm air.
Higher humidity levels can help relieve some skin conditions.
Higher humidity levels can benefit a person’s immune system.
Dry air can feel cooler than warm air.
Higher humidity levels can help relieve some skin conditions.
Higher humidity levels can benefit a person’s immune system.
A
Humidity can be bad for computers.
This answer is anti-supported. We know from the stimulus that humidity levels in a room can protect computers from the effects of air that is too dry. It is dry air, instead, that is bad for computers.
B
A room can be too dry for the optimal maintenance of its furnishings.
This answer is supported. We know from the stimulus that raising humidity levels in a room can protect computers from the effects of air that is too dry.
C
Dry air can feel cooler than humid air of the same temperature.
This answer is supported. We know from the stimulus that humidity can make people feel warmer.
D
Increased humidity can be beneficial to the skin.
This answer is supported. We know from the stimulus that humidity can help alleviate some skin rashes.
E
The human immune system can benefit from humidity.
This answer is supported. We know from the stimulus that humidity can help the body’s defense against viruses.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Birds usually hide in vegetation when startled, but tend to flee vegetation when startled in suburban gardens.
Objective
A hypothesis explaining this behavior must imply a difference between startled birds in general and birds startled at feeders in suburban gardens. This difference must explain why birds in suburban gardens seem to buck the trend by fleeing vegetation and colliding with windows.
A
Predator attacks are as likely to occur at bird feeders surrounded by dense vegetation as they are at feeders surrounded by little or no vegetation.
This eliminates an irrelevant distinction. The author states or implies no difference between feeders surrounded by dense vegetation and those surrounded by little to no vegetation, nor suggests to which category suburban garden feeders belong.
B
The bird feeders in some suburban gardens are placed at a considerable distance from the houses.
This deepens the mystery. If the birds are long distances from the windows when startled, their collision with them seems less coincidental—yet no more clear.
C
Large birds are as likely as small birds to fly into windowpanes.
This is irrelevant information. The author makes no distinction between large and small birds, so their similarity in this respect does nothing to explain the birds’ behavior.
D
Most of the birds startled while feeding at bird feeders placed in suburban gardens are startled by loud noises rather than by predators.
This is an irrelevant distinction. There is no suggestion that birds startled by noises are less likely to seek vegetation than birds startled by predators.
E
The windowpanes of many houses clearly reflect surrounding vegetation.
This explains the tendency of birds at suburban feeders to collide with windows. The birds mistake the windowpanes for vegetation, colliding with them accidentally.