PrepTest 125

Topic: Social Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Author on the theoretical benefits of cohesive groups (members feel more comfortable to speak their minds)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Definition of "cohesive groups": A group whose members generally agree and support each other's judgments (first sentence)
  • Comparisons, according to the author:
    • In principle, cohesive groups are better at making decisions than noncohesive groups (first sentence)
    • Members of cohesive groups feel more accepted and comfortable with expressing themselves than members of noncohesive groups, so they're less likely to make deceitful or banal arguments or censor themselves (second through last sentences)
  • Author's attitude: "In principle" (first sentence); "much better job" (first sentence); "likely to be strongest" (second sentence); "need to be" (third sentence); "acquire greater freedom" (fourth sentence); "less likely" (fourth sentence); "Typically" (last sentence); "less its members will deliberately censor" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author on the downside of highly cohesive groups (desire for consensus can make them not examine arguments critically, "groupthink")
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
    • Members of a highly cohesive group can feel free to disagree with the majority, their desire for consensus can cause them to not exercise this freedom (first sentence)
  • Author's view:
    • Members of highly cohesive groups may not critically examine proposals, or they may decide that their doubts are not legitimate (second and third sentences)
  • Definition of "groupthink": A deterioration of critical analysis, realism, and moral judgment that results from in-group pressure (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "can have pitfalls" (first sentence); "can feel much freer" (first sentence); "often inclines" (first sentence); "danger is not" (second sentence); "but that they ... critical scrutiny" (second sentence); "may" (third sentence); "may fall victim" (last sentence);

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Researchers on factors that recur in groupthink (overestimation, close-mindedness, pressures to uniformity) and author's recommended further study (cohesiveness is necessary, not sufficient; need to know additional factors)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • List of factors that recur in groupthink, according to researchers on fiascoes in diplomacy and military:
    • Overestimation of abilities/feeling of invulnerability (first sentence)
    • Ignoring warnings and alternative viewpoints (first sentence)
    • Self-censorship and illusions of unanimity (first sentence)
  • Author's view:
    • Cohesiveness is necessary but not sufficient for "groupthink," so additional studies should look into which other factors turn cohesiveness into groupthink (last sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "major fiascoes" (first sentence); “have identified" (first sentence); "recurring pattern" (first sentence); "is an essential antecedent condition ... but not a sufficient one" (last sentence); "it is important to work toward identifying the additional factors" (last sentence)

Main Point: While cohesive groups can theoretically make better decisions than noncohesive groups, pressures to maintain consensus can devolve into "groupthink," which can itself lead to bad decisions being made.

Problem/Solution: This is one of those Problem/Solution passages where the author doesn't propose a solution. (The first passage in this Reading Comp section also fit this bill.) The author only really describes some of the problems with highly cohesive groups without delving into any solutions to those problems.

In a Problem/Solution passage, the main point is typically the solution the author offers or supports. But without a real solution discussed, the main point of this passage is the author's opinion of the problem. The author acknowledges that group cohesion can be good in principle, but the author spends the second and third paragraphs discussing why high cohesiveness can be bad for group decision-making. We included both of these opinions in our anticipated main point.

Comparison: The first paragraph compares cohesive and noncohesive groups, making the comparison the most prominent minor Meta-Structure in this passage. Such an extended comparison generally shows up in some questions. Additionally, the author's comment that cohesiveness is a necessary condition of groupthink is also implicitly comparative. If groupthink requires cohesiveness, then a noncohesive group cannot fall victim to groupthink. If we want to avoid some fact-finding missions for these questions, we can try to remember a few details about both sides:

• Cohesive groups: Better at making decisions (in principle); members feel more accepted and comfortable with expressing themselves; fewer banal/deceitful arguments and less self-censorship; groupthink possible.
• Noncohesive group: Worse at making decisions (in principle); members feel less accepted and comfortable with expressing themselves; more banal/deceitful arguments and self-censorship; groupthink not possible.

Many test-takers have trouble when the author argues that something can be both bad and good, as this author does. Especially when — if we read this passage too quickly — we could wonder if the author contradicts themselves. If cohesive groups are better at promoting free discussion (P1, S4), then why do they also not freely discuss the issues (P2, S3)? If cohesive groups are better at making decisions (P1, S1), then why does it seem like they're so bad at making decisions (P2, S4)?

There are two words that can clarify this issue for us: "principle" (P1, S1) and "highly" (P2, S1). The author says that cohesive groups are better at making decisions in "principle" (P1, S1). The word "principle," in this case, contrasts with "in practice." Theoretically, cohesive groups should make better decisions. But in the real world — judging from the diplomatic and military "fiascoes" studied by researchers (P3, S1) — they can make bad decisions.

The author also clarifies that "highly cohesive groups" tend not to discuss the issues freely (P2, S1). In other words, while group cohesiveness is good, there's a danger of going too far. A "highly cohesive group" might be so focused on maintaining its good vibes and harmony that its members might not even think they could be wrong. 

These small words can be easy to overlook if you're reading too quickly! It's not worth speeding through the passage if you're going to reach the end confused and unable to make heads or tails of the main point.