Logical reasoning PrepTest 116 · Section 3 · Question 3

Incorrect. This answer is wrong for one of two reasons. Either there's not enough information to know that either group was told they were being closely watched (they were both told they were being watched, but it's not clear it was closely). Or both groups were told they were being closely watched, just to judge different things. In either case, this answer doesn't address the difference between the groups that can explain the different performance and thus isn't a proposition that the situation conforms to.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Group 1 — Tennis players told their skill was being used to judge racquet quality
Group 2 — Tennis players told their skill was being measured
Groups 1 and 2 were of equal skill, but Group 1 performed much better.

Answer Anticipation:
This question is asking us to find an answer that brings up a proposition that a situation conforms to. As such, we should expect a general and abstract statement reflecting the details presented.

There, two equally skilled" groups of tennis players have their skills analyzed. All else equal, since they're equally skilled, their performance should have been pretty similar.

Instead, one group performed "much better" than the other. To explain this difference, we should identify a relevant difference between the groups.

And we're given one—what they were told about the study. The group that performed better was told that they weren't being analyzed, but rather the racquets were. On the other hand, the worse—performing group was told that they were being judged.

So this situation conforms to a proposition dealing with people who think they're being judged performing worse, or people who don't think they're being judged performing better.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the difference between the setup of the groups for the study and the outcome. Group 1 performed better than Group 2, and the difference raised between them is that Group 2 was told their skills were being analyzed, not the racquets as Group 1 was told. This answer is therefore a proposition that the situation conforms to, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
Comparisons are key in arguments that rely on them. Track these comparisons, and know that differences are generally explained by other differences.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of the confidence of either group, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of how either group assessed their own skills—just an objective statement that they were equally skilled. This answer is therefore out of scope.

Incorrect. Two issues here. First, there's no discussion of a superior performance pleasing the researchers. Second, there's no indication of what effect trying harder has on performance. For both of these reasons we can eliminate this answer.