Q22

[pinkdatura]

I am wondering if B is wrong because it addresses wrong part of passage by mentioning a comparison between high cohesion and low cohesion group?
Also both E and Q25 D mention "voluntary deference/conformity"
I know forced compliance happens in group-thinking group and low cohesion group, so what this voluntary conformity refer to?
Thank you so much.

[cyruswhittaker]

It seems like for this question, there is a specific condition that needs to be referenced: cohesiveness.

Notice in lines 52-54 that the author asserts that "cohesiveness of the decision-making group" is an "essential antecedent condition" but not a "sufficient" one.

This initially struck me as a rather odd way to phrase this because normally I consider an antecedent condition to be a sufficient condition.

However, I believe what the author is saying is that the groupthing phenomenon MUST occur within a setting that involves cohesiveness of the decision-making group; however, that does not guarantee (i.e. is not sufficient) that groupthink will indeed occur.

Question 22 directly tests this understanding. Choice C doesn't use the word "cohesiveness" but rather subsitutes the definition provided up in lines 1-3, and provides an example in which groupthink did not occur when the necessary element of cohesiviness is not in place.

Going beyond this question, it seems like they could have similairly asked a WEAKEN question, and then negated answer choice (C), as the correct answer.

Getting back to the question, the other choices provide irrelevant conditions that aren't explicitly referenced by the author.

[shirando21]

I can understand why E is incorrect.
But still don't fully understand why C is correct.
where in the passage does the author discuss trust or distrust of members?

[Dkrajewski30]

I see why C is correct, because if there's no groupthink among groups where there's rampant distrust - in other words, no groupthink in non-cohesive groups as cohesive groups contain very little distrust, if any - then this consideration strengthens the claim that cohesion is necessary for groupthink. If it were not necessary for groupthink, then you'd expect there to be cases where groupthink occurs in a non-cohesive group. Yet extensive research showed no such cases of this? Then it's reasonable to suspect that cohesion is needed for groupthink to occur.

However, on its face, I don't see why B is wrong, as I think B also strengthens the author's claim about cohesion being necessary for groupthink but not sufficient for groupthink.

Here's why: I think B strengthens the claim that groupthink is not sufficient on its own to bring about groupthink. If there's good reason to think that respectful dissent is more likely to occur in cohesive groups than some other groups, then this shows, indeed, that cohesion is not sufficient for groupthink. After all, if cohesion were sufficient for groupthink, then you wouldn't expect dissent to be more likely in such groups than some others, as dissent seems to prevent a group from obtaining the 'disease' of groupthink. So while C strengthens the 'cohesion is necessary' part, B strengthens the 'cohesion is not sufficient' part of the author's claim.

That said, I do think C is a better answer than B. So I'm going to play devil's advocate to my alternative choice and try to discount it all together.

It's never stated either implicitly or explicitly that dissent cannot occur either in groups suffering from groupthink or in cohesive groups. If many groups with groupthink and/or cohesion have some dissent going on in them - respectful dissent nevertheless and not rude dissent - does this strengthen the idea that cohesion isn't sufficient? Now I don't think it does. Couldn't it be the case that dissent occurs in a group w/ groupthink here and there? Would the fact that dissent occurs mean that the group doesn't suffer from groupthink? Well, we've got no reason to think that given the passage. As stated, there's nothing in the passage to suggest that dissent is incompatible with cohesion and/or groupthink. So then if that's true, and dissent is compatible with both things, then B doesn't strengthen the claim that cohesion isn't sufficient for groupthink. Because so what if cohesive groups are more likely to have dissenters than some other groups? Having dissenters does not preclude them from becoming 'groupthinkers'. And so cohesion still could be sufficient for groupthink as dissent doesn't prevent that from being so. (Conceivably, too much dissent may preclude a group from cohesion and/or groupthink, and it's actually only a small amount of dissent that's compatible with both things. Either way, the passage doesn't necessarily support such an interpretation.)

[ohthatpatrick]

I'll just add my two cents to this tough problem:

Start out by defining for yourself where in the passage the author listed the conditions under which groupthink takes place. I thought lines 21-34 were most relevant, because they lead into "in this way ... they may fall victim to 'groupthink'".

What are the factors?
- a cohesive group (they generally agree with each other and are not afraid to disagree with each other)
but
- desire to agree on every important issue causes them to suspend a critical scrutiny of other members' ideas ... a individual member tends to squash his/her own misgivings so that a group consensus is reached.

So getting ready for the answer choices, I would either expect LSAT to strengthen this picture by giving me an example where "these qualities" went along with "groupthink" ... OR (possibly more likely because it's trickier) we'll get "an absence of these qualities" going along with "an absence of groupthink".

(A) doesn't give us any qualities to go off, so eliminate it.

(B) is talking about qualities relating to group cohesion from the 1st paragraph .. up until a point, the more cohesive a group is, the more likely the group members feel comfortable with respectful dissent. This answer doesn't bring up groupthink, so it's too much of a stretch to talk ourselves into it being relevant.

(C) This says "no groupthink" goes along with "generally distrusting one another's judgments". "Trusting one another's judgments" is code language for "thinking proposals are good ones without attempting to carry out critical scrutiny" (lines 30-31) and/or code language for Cohesion, "generally support each other's judgments" (line 3). This answer reinforces the conditions the author highlighted. Keep it.

(D) This is a mismatch. Intransigence (i.e. stubborn objections) are pretty much the opposite of groupthink.

(E) This generally goes against the author. "Voluntary deference to group opinion" is code language for "desire to maintain a consensus" or the aforementioned lines 30-31. This IS what the author thinks accompanies groupthink behavior.

In terms of the nec/suff conundrum some people have been worried about, remember that since the author does NOT say anything is SUFFICIENT for groupthink, we're only going with what's necessary.

In lines 52-58, the author says
Groupthink --> cohesiveness

The contrapositive of this is
~Cohesiveness --> ~Groupthink

Essentially, that's what (C) is saying. In groups where people don't trust each other's judgments, you don't have cohesion, thus you don't have groupthink.

Hope this helps.

[daijob]

I'm still confused with the explanation
I think this question and Q 23 is kind of related...so it implies "trust" within cohesive group starting line 25~, so cohesive group=>trust. Tthe author continues to say "they may fall cicatim to a syndrome know as groupthink" so I thought it is cohesive group=>trust which makes groupthink. It also says it is antecedent condition, but not sufficient one, so I thought this means groupthink=>cohesiveness because groupthink has the condition (cohesiveness). Combined these two together, groupthink=>cohesiveness (cohesive group)=>trust. C says there is no case groupthink=>distrust so this kind of repeating or assure groupthink=>cohesiveness=trust is true, so it helps the reasoning.
So this is how I interpretted but not sure this is correct or follow what is discussed above...
Did I understand the passage correctly?

Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

Yup, sounds like you're saying the same thing as the previous explanation.

As you said
Groupthink --requires---> Cohesion ---requires---> Trust

(C) is saying "When there is distrust, there is not groupthink"
~Trust --> ~Groupthink

That's just the contrapositive of the whole chain:
"Essentially, that's what (C) is saying. In groups where people don't trust each other's judgments, you don't have cohesion, thus you don't have groupthink."