Q17 - Two hundred randomly selected

[sumukh09]

This is a most strongly supported question. What we need to do for this question type is use the information in the stimulus and find an answer choice that is supported by that information.

This stimulus talks about a study involving 200 people and asking them a question about waking up and feeling paralyzed with a sense of a strange presence in the room (doesn't sound too fun); 40 percent said they did.

The same study used 200 other people and asked them the same question but excluded the 2nd half of the question, namely whether they sensed a strange presence in the room. This time, however, only 14 percent said they did ie) woken up seemingly paralyzed

Hmmmmmmm...

Let's move on to the answer choices:

A) Can we find any support this? Is there anything in the stimulus that would suggest that sensing a strange presence in the room causes a feeling of paralysis? Nope"”eliminate.

B) Well, we can't find support for this either because remember, the second group was not asked about sensing a strange presence in the room so we don't know if the number is greater in the first group or the second group. Eliminate.

C) we don't know anything about the other 60 percent

D) We have no reason to think that they gave inconsistent reports. This answer choice is trying to make you think that the difference in percentage of both groups has something to do with people giving inconsistent reports. But the two samples were of different people and were asked different questions.

E) this is something we can find support for -- more people in group 1 remembered waking up feeling paralyzed than the second group; and the difference could be reasonably attributed to the first group remembering sensing the strange presence in the room as well which is what probably made it easier to recollect waking up feeling paralyzed. This is the correct answer.

[tommywallach]

Hey Sumukh,

I love the thoroughness with which you've explored this question. However, there are a few things I want to mention.

First off, this is called an inference question. It's important to know the names regardless of the specific way they choose to word it (inference questions can be asked in a dozen different ways, of which this is just one).

Let's simplify the stimulus:

40/200 said they woke paralyzed w/ strange presence
14/200 said they woke paralyzed

The first thing we need to notice is that this is weird! Why would more people have a more specific experience. If anything, more people should report the second experience, which is more general (i.e. the first question represents a subset of the second).

(A) jumps to a causal relationship to explain why there are more people with paralysis + a strange presence than just paralysis. But we are never allowed to make leaps on an inference question, and this would be a leap.

(B) You nailed this one. We don't know how many of the people in the second group did sense a strange presence when they woke up.

(C) Be very careful. Your explanation here was very wrong. We DO know about the other sixty percent; they answered NO to this question. However, the question they answered no to was "Have you awakened paralyzed w/ strange presence?" This answer choice implies they answered no to the question "Have you ever awakened w/ strange presence." It leaves out the paralysis!

(D) There's no inconsistency, because the two groups are separate. If they were the same group, there would definitely be inconsistency, and this would be the right answer!

(E) CORRECT. This explain why so many more people are in the subset. The additional details in spurring the memory (or perhaps creating it?).

Hope that helps!

-t

[jrkovals]

tommywallach

great explanation for C. I was looking for one.

point of clarification reagrding the stimulus. Its .40(200) = 80 ( (80/200) and .14(200) = 28. ( 28/200)

jake

[kyuya]

Group 1:

- awaken paralysed + weird presence = 40%

Group 2:

- only paralysed = 14%

(A) This isn't supported. We do not know anything about CAUSES here. Although they are coupled together (presence and paralysed) we cannot say one causes the other. It could just be coincidence due to the people being asked.

(B)The second group is simply not asked about being paralysed, so we do not know if the first groups numbers were indeed greater. They could very well have been lower.

(C) This is wrong because it ignores one of the two conditions this group was asked to comment about. This answer choice acts as if they were not asked if they had awoken paralysed, but they were. It could very well mean then that many of them did awaken with the feeling of a strange presence in the room, but weren't paralysed.

(D) We have no idea. The two groups are not overlapping, so we have no basis of comparing responses to determine where people were consistent / not consistent.

(E) This is the correct answer and is shown through a comparison of the 1st group and the control group. The control group, only asking about being paralysed, gets 14% of people reporting it. However, the first group has many more with 40%, and the different in questions is the addition of the strange presence in the room. So it is reasonable to infer, especially since the difference was so big, that it makes a difference by suggesting circumstances that accompany an event (being paralysed).