PT142.S1.Q21 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8

PASSAGE 2

Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16

PASSAGE 3

Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PrepTest 142 - Section 1 - Question 21

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action