Q17 - Recent research shows that hesitation, shifting postur

[stacyjeewonlee]

Could anybody please explain this question for me? Thanx!!

[sumukh09]

Weird question stem! This is basically a weaken question disguised as something else.

We need an answer choice that makes us skeptical about the "better" clues to observe when someone is lying. Recent research shows that controllable indicators, such as maintaining eye contact, shifting postures, etc., are not reliable when determining when someone is lying or not. Instead, it is much better to observe what cannot be controlled, such as movements of facial muscles.

A) Not sure how this would impact our argument in any way. So what if they are aware that they are being closely observed? What does this have to do with what they can or can't control?

B) Past history of lying? Again, irrelevant. We need something about why we should second guess the "better" clues described in the stimulus.

C) This one we can eliminate because it talks about the controlled indicators and why they might not be reliable. But the stimulus already tells us that, so we don't need to know it a second time.

D) Ah, here we go. This one works. If someone is telling the truth ie) not lying, and they're affected emotionally (distress, fear) then this might trigger things that they can't control like the size of their pupils or facial movements. Well, this would certainly be a case for exercising caution when relying on the "better" clues; it's not really helpful calling someone a liar when they are telling the truth, so we might want to think twice about using these uncontrollable indicators as clues when we want to find out if someone is lying.

E) Okay, then they are probably lying if they have dilated pupils and are shifting their posture. This doesn't cause us to exercise any caution with relying on the uncontrollable indicators posited in the stimulus

[christine.defenbaugh]

Nice work, sumukh09!

It is indeed a weird question stem! I think you could make an argument that this was either a strengthen or a weaken question, depending on how you frame it. Essentially, the stimulus is all premise. The question stem gives you the possible conclusions. So the core might be:

PREMISE:
Behavior that cannot be controlled is a better/more reliable indicator of lying than is behavior than can be controlled
CONCLUSION: However, one should use caution when relying on these better indicators

Formulated this way, we might consider our task to be looking for a strengthener!

Notice that whichever way you set the conclusion, it is about whether or not one should use caution with the uncontrollable behavioral indicators. Anything about the controllable behavioral indicators, good or bad, is not really relevant.

Also, it's worth considering at the outset why we might want to have caution! Either the 'uncontrollable indicators' must sometimes suggests liars are telling the truth, or sometimes suggest truthful people are lying! In other words, they must either give us false positives or false negatives! Either way would be a cause for caution.

[WaltGrace1983]

Something I took note of when doing this question was that idea that the uncontrollable behavior is a much better clue "at least when the lie is important to the liar." Couldn't we also show that liars tend to not care about their lies? In such a case, this would mean that the test may produce false negatives because their apathy wouldn't give rise to the uncontrollable body language.

Thoughts?

[sumukh09]

True but then we wouldn't really be relying on those uncontrollable observations. In other words, we have to assume that the lie is important to the individual lying because the question stem requires that of us; so in order to answer the question, some type of behavior must be exhibited by the liar - whether uncontrollable or controllable.

We have to find an answer choice that causes us to exercise caution in cases where we have to specifically rely on these clues. We wouldn't really be relying on these clues if the lie wasn't important to the liar, so I think for the purposes of this question it's a given assumption that the lie is important to the liar. Also, chances are, if the lie isn't important to the liar, then we would probably care less about the validity of their statements. If someone is concerned about their lie ie) someone has something significant to lose if they are caught lying, then I think we can assume the truth of the individual's assertions are also important to the person hearing the lie.

And I think for the purposes of this question, given the way it is written, suggests that the truth of the individual's statements are important. Sorry if this is confusing - this is just my take on it, let me know what you think.

Edit: just read my response and it's kind all over the place, so let me try and be a little more clear: I agree that we should also exercise caution when relying on these indicators in instances where the lie is NOT important to the liar - however, I think the question is clear in that it is about which indicators are better suited to discover if someone is lying, so basically we must assume that the lie is important to the liar.

An answer choice could conceivably read

"In most cases individuals do not consider the importance of their lie"

However, this completely negates the whole discussion in the stimulus about which indicators are better suited to discover whether someone is lying.

Hopefully that helps!

[WaltGrace1983]

True but then we wouldn't really be relying on those uncontrollable observations. In other words, we have to assume that the lie is important to the individual lying because the question stem requires that of us; so in order to answer the question, some type of behavior must be exhibited by the liar - whether uncontrollable or controllable.

We have to find an answer choice that causes us to exercise caution in cases where we have to specifically rely on these clues. We wouldn't really be relying on these clues if the lie wasn't important to the liar, so I think for the purposes of this question it's a given assumption that the lie is important to the liar. Also, chances are, if the lie isn't important to the liar, then we would probably care less about the validity of their statements. If someone is concerned about their lie ie) someone has something significant to lose if they are caught lying, then I think we can assume the truth of the individual's assertions are also important to the person hearing the lie.

And I think for the purposes of this question, given the way it is written, suggests that the truth of the individual's statements are important. Sorry if this is confusing - this is just my take on it, let me know what you think.

Edit: just read my response and it's kind all over the place, so let me try and be a little more clear: I agree that we should also exercise caution when relying on these indicators in instances where the lie is NOT important to the liar - however, I think the question is clear in that it is about which indicators are better suited to discover if someone is lying, so basically we must assume that the lie is important to the liar.

An answer choice could conceivably read

"In most cases individuals do not consider the importance of their lie"

However, this completely negates the whole discussion in the stimulus about which indicators are better suited to discover whether someone is lying.

Hopefully that helps!

So what you are saying is that the focus of the question STEM would imply that the lie is important? I'm a bit unsure about your reasoning.

[sumukh09]

Both the stem and stimulus taken together would imply that the lie being told ought to be considered important.

Focus of the stimulus is between controllable vs. uncontrollable behaviors and their disadvantages and advantages, respectively. The STEM is asking about when caution should be exercised when relying on these uncontrollable behaviors. Thus, saying that it's possible that the lie may not be important to the individual would essentially dismiss the claims made in the stimulus. It's like saying, "X is better than Y for this reason at least in such cases"

Analogously, uncontrollable indicators are better than controllable indicators because in times of distress or fear, such and such occur; at least if these emotions manifest.

Well, if these emotions don't manifest (lie is not important to the liar), then you can't really make any claims about the relative merits of controlled vs uncontrolled behavior.

If no claims can be made, then there's no argument.

Does that make more sense? I mean, I see where you're coming from, but I think we can ignore that small part of the stimulus about "at least when the lie is important to the liar." Also, we don't really know anything about how effective these uncontrollable indicators are when the lie ISN'T important to the liar - so it would be an unwarranted assumption to say that "hmm, because the stimulus qualifies their argument by saying "at least in cases where the lie is important to the liar" then it must be the case that when the lie is NOT important to the liar, then these uncontrollable indicators are ineffective" - had it said, instead, "ONLY in cases when the lie is important to the liar" then that would be a different story, although my reasoning would still apply about why we can ignore that qualification.

Again, this is just my 0.02 - I could be completely wrong. I'm curious to see what an expert has to say about your question, because it's a good one.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Interesting discussion, guys!

On a certain level, you're both overthinking this.

But to get down to it, I don't think we have anything that allows us to assume that the lies in question are definitely important to the liar.

Essentially, if you're trying to figure out if someone's lying, there's a whole lot of information that you don't know. You don't know what the truth is and you certainly don't know whether the lie (if it is one) would be an important lie to the liar (if they are one). You're just in the dark!!

Imagine a schoolteacher who is trying to implement a system of determining which of her students are lying based on these 'better clues' about uncontrollable factors: If it turns out that the lies in question aren't important to the lying students, then the 'better clues' sure won't be much help!

sumukh09, your point is well taken that we can assume that the lie (or the truth of the matter) must be important to whoever is seeking it - but that doesn't necessarily mean the lie is important to the liar. We simply have zero information about that - and practically speaking, we never *would* have information about that in a specific scenario.

If an answer choice said "The vast majority of lies are simply not important to the liars who make them" I would absolutely choose that answer without hesitation. If that were true, then these 'uncontrollable factors', while better on average than the controllable ones, would be of substantially less usefulness in determining who lies - and thus, I would want to exercise caution in relying on those factors.

Now, I would not expect that kind of answer, particularly not on a question 17, because it's just a bit too direct. In other words, it would be a rock solid support for caution, but just not terribly interesting. I think this may be why sumukh09 felt that assuming the importance of the lie is necessary - it's not necessary for the argument, strictly speaking, but it IS necessary to get to the more interesting issue.

Let me know what you both think of this! Great thoughts from you both!

[WaltGrace1983]

Point taken! Thanks!

[contropositive]

I see how D is corrrect, but I have a hard time eliminating A. I know that awarness does not have anything to do with the statement "...behavior that cannot be controlled is a much better clue..." but couldn't you say that implies the person can control their emotions and facial muscles?
or am I making an unwarranted assumption here?

[christine.defenbaugh]

I see how D is corrrect, but I have a hard time eliminating A. I know that awarness does not have anything to do with the statement "...behavior that cannot be controlled is a much better clue..." but couldn't you say that implies the person can control their emotions and facial muscles?
or am I making an unwarranted assumption here?

Thanks for posting, royaimani20!

It seems like you've got the information a bit turned around. The "better" clues (dilation of pupils and facial muscle movements) are specifically identified as being "behavior that cannot be controlled." The stimulus refers to those uncontrollable behaviors, then says that "such behavior," i.e., uncontrollable behavior, "includes the dilation of eye pupils...and small movements of facial muscles."

Since those things are explicitly defined as uncontrollable, it would make no difference whether someone was aware they were being observed, because they couldn't change their behavior regardless.

Does that clear that up?