University president: When a faculty member's falsification of research was uncovered, the media treated it as evidence of the university's low standards, even though in truth it was a mere case of dishonesty. ███ █████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██ ████████ █████████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████ █████████ ████ ██████ █ █████ ██ ███████████
In this slightly atypical question, we are tasked with finding a situation that parallels the principle from the stimulus. The principle is not explicitly stated, however, so we must first articulate it.
The stimulus gives us a situation where a particular bad event is perceived as having one cause (low standards), when it actually had another (dishonesty). It then concludes that it’s still good to address the perceived cause because it’s an important topic. This gives us our principle: Even if people mistake the cause of a bad event, it’s still good to bring focus to that cause because it’s an important topic.
Which one of the following ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██████
The latest government ███████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ █ ████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ███████████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ █████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ █████████ ███ ███ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███████████
(A) gives us a cause (lack of oversight) that led to two bad events (a government scandal and corruption). It then concludes that, because the cause cannot be fully eliminated, it’s important to bring up other new topics. The stimulus, however, presents a situation where the perceived cause of a bad event is different from its real cause, and concludes that it’s still important to address the perceived cause, so (A) doesn’t match.
The latest government ███████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ███████████ ████████████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████ █████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ██████
(B) gives us a situation where a particular bad event is perceived as having one cause (lack of oversight), when it actually had another (corruption). It then concludes that it’s still good to address the perceived cause because it’s an important topic. This matches the principle from the stimulus, so (B) is correct.
The latest government ███████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████████ ██ █ ███████ █████ █████████ ████████ ███ ███ █████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███████ █████████
(C) gives us a single bad event with two different causes (lack of oversight and corruption), with both of the causes being addressed. The stimulus, however, gives us a bad event with one real cause and one perceived cause, so (C) doesn’t match.
The latest government ███████ ███ ████ ████████ ██ █ ████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ███████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████████
(D) gives us a situation where a particular bad event is perceived as having one cause (corruption), when it actually had another (lack of oversight). It then concludes that this misattribution is bad. The stimulus, however, concludes that the misattribution of an event’s cause is good because it brings awareness to an important topic, so (D) is the opposite of what we’re looking for.
The latest government ███████ ███ ████ ████████ ██ █ ████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ████████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ████████
(E) presents a bad event that is perceived as having a certain cause (corruption). It then affirms this as the primary cause. The stimulus gives us a situation where people are incorrect about the cause of a bad event, however, so (E) doesn’t match.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic