Logical reasoning PrepTest 142 · Section 1 · Question 21

Incorrect. The stimulus establishes that both dogs were obeying the commands before the discrepancy in rewards became apparent, so this answer doesn't get us any relevant information.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Evaluation

Stimulus Summary:
Pairs of dogs were given the same command, and only one was rewarded for obeying. After a while, the one who didn't get the treat didn't obey. Therefore, dogs hate unfairness.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument reaches a conclusion that tries to explain an observed phenomenon—and it tries to get inside the heads of dogs.

The observed phenomenon is that a dog who knows a command will stop obeying it if it sees another dog rewarded for obeying while they don't. The proposed explanation? Dogs don't like being treated unfairly.

That's . . . a stretch. We can't really ask the dogs what they're thinking, and it's unclear if dogs can even recognize concepts like unfairness (in the question—we're dog lovers, so we know they can). There's also a clear alternative suggested by the scenario—dogs don't obey when they're not rewarded, and it has nothing to do with unfairness.

Since this is an Argument Evaluation question, any question that hints at an alternative explanation for the behavior will be correct.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice hints at an alternative cause—dogs stop obeying with the motivation of a reward. If both dogs disobey when the treat is withheld, then disobedience isn't driven by unfairness. If they don't, then unfairness is supported.

Key Takeaway:
When conclusions are meant to explain an observed phenomenon, the argument is generally flawed in that it ignores alternative explanations. Start thinking in that direction and you'll likely find the correct answer.

Incorrect. While this question might provide an answer relevant to determining if the study was designed well, it has nothing to do with behavior or unfairness, so it's out of scope.

Incorrect. If the rewarded dogs were more inclined to obey, then that might suggest the treats were the motivating factor. However, if the rewarded dogs weren't more inclined to obey the command over time, that wouldn't help evaluate the argument as the treat could still be the motivating factor, so this answer isn't correct.

Incorrect. Whether it took 3, 5, 50, or 100, the trend was apparently persistent across the study, and this doesn't help to explain why.