Q22 - There is a widespread belief

[b91302310]

Hi,

Could any one explain why answer choice (E) is better than (C) because I was struggling with making selection between (C) and (E).

Thanks!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question!

We're asked to choose the question whose answer would be most helpful in evaluating the skeptics' position.

The skeptics' position is that the belief that animal behavior can indicate an impending earthquake is erroneously based on selective coincidence: people are just more likely to remember their dogs' behavior if it happened right before an earthquake.

Well, okay, but is that behavior connected with earthquakes or not? In other words, is the dog behavior just the same old stuff the dogs would be doing normally, or is it something they only do when an earthquake is on its way?

(E) is correct because it poses just that question. If the answer is "yes," and the behavior is specific to impending earthquakes, then the skeptics' position would be weakened. But if the answer is "no," then the selective coincidence argument would be bolstered.

(C) doesn't help us evaluate the skeptics' position. Why? Because even if the answer is "yes," that still doesn't mean that there are no animals whose behavior we can accurately judge. In other words, maybe we can't distinguish unusual marmoset behavior from everyday marmoset behavior, but we can still distinguish normal and unusual dog behavior.

(A) is out of scope. The number of people holding each position is irrelevant.

(B) is out of scope. This argument is about observation of animals.

(D) is out of scope. The question is, can animal behavior predict earthquakes? It's not about comparing dogs to other animals.

Does that answer your question?

[b91302310]

Yes, it's quite clear. (E) is so clear and direct to the argument that makes me cast doubt whether there is a trap. Now, I know I should have more confidence.

Thanks!

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

In this problem, the skeptics' conclusion is that "this" belief is based on selective coincidence. {"This" belief is about animals' behavior.} However, a premise about "dog" is used to support that stand. To me, one of the gaps is that the skeptics is assuming a connection between "dog's behavior" and "animal behavior"

Wouldn't D) be relevant because if we assume that dog's behavior is correlated but, say, squirrel's behavior is not. Wouldn't it undermine the connection between "dog" and "animal behavior" in the conclusion?

Please help me.

[rinagoldfield]

Hey gmatalongthewatchtower,

Great question!

Remember that the skeptics’ position concerns human memory more than it does dogs in particular. According to the skeptics, we believe that unusual dog behavior can predict earthquakes because we remember unusual dog behavior from right before a quake. We conveniently forget the myriad other times that dogs behave in an unusual manner.

This issue won’t change whether we are talking about dogs or hummingbirds or any other kind of animal. Let’s say hummingbirds get REALLY weird before earthquakes, even weirder than dogs. People begin to notice this, and connect it to some kind of disaster-ESP. But what if hummingbirds get really weird before dawn too? And before dying? Maybe people only notice their weirdness right before earthquakes, when in reality, hummingbirds get really weird in all kinds of scenarios. The weirdness they exhibit right before the earthquake therefore might have nothing to with the earthquake itself.

Whether or not unusual behavior in more pronounced in other animals, the issue of selective memory remains. (D) can't be correct.

Does this make sense?

[onguyen228]

For this question type I find it necessary to figure out the flaw in the stimulus, otherwise the correct AC won't be apparent, and causes a reliance on familiarity.

Figuring out the flaw is the most difficult part with this stimulus. The flaw is an uncertain use of the word behavior, and it is used in two difference senses. Notice the adjective for behavior switches from "unusual" to "oddly."

The skeptic attempts to prove her argument by stating that "dogs will be behaving oddly" in the context of every day behavior, therefore "unusual animal behavior" in the context of an impending earthquake is incorrect and a selective coincidence.

Try to focus on distinguishing the two senses. Think of it as two separate elements: 1. Every day behavior, and 2. Specific behavior. Once this is accomplished, it'll be apparent that the link between the two elements is missing.

Now, two ways this argument can go:

Supports the skeptic: The behavior that people believe to occur before an impending earthquake is the same as the unusual every day behavior.

Undermines the skeptic's argument: The behavior that people believe to occur before an impending earthquake is a SPECIFIC type of behavior and different from the every day unusual behavior.