Q23

[like333]

No questions on 23? I'm surprised. This is the only one I missed on this passage. Can someone explain why B is right and E wrong?

[ohthatpatrick]

This passage is considered pretty tough by most people's standards, so I'm surprised that any question fell through the cracks.

I think your confusion came from line 26, which says that in groupthink groups, there is no danger that "individuals will conceal objections they harbor regarding a proposal favored by the majority", which would seem to support (E).

However, the rest of that sentence goes on to say the reason objections to the majority won't be concealed is because objections to the majority won't be considered in the first place.

Lines 25-31, especially "they will think the proposal is a good one without attempting to carry out a critical scrutiny that could reveal grounds for strong objections", seem to support (B) and oppose (E).

Also, lines 47-48 contradict (E).

The reason groupthink is a problem is because people buy in to whatever the majority is thinking, no longer raising/considering/humoring possible objections.

Hope this helps.

=== other answers ===

A) there wouldn't be adversaries within a group that is vulnerable to groupthink - groupthink only occurs within tight-knit, highly cohesive groups.

C) high stress was never mentioned as a component of groupthink

D) this was mentioned in paragraph 1 in reference to how timid members of a low cohesion group might behave

[taylorwoodsloeb]

I was between (B) and (E)

My issue with this question really hinges on the interpretation of "consideration" in answer (E).

I read "careful consideration" as: the group member who is thinking about raising a concern will "carefully consider" their objection to the majority position before bringing up publicly within the group. I derive this from lines 49-50: "... self-censorship with respect to doubts about the group's reasoning..."

Under this reading, I really think that Answer E is totally solid.

Now, of course if you want to view "consideration" as "deliberation within the group," then, yes, answer B all day. But I'm really convinced that this one slipped through the cracks.

Love to hear any thoughts on that.

[ohthatpatrick]

Ha. I see where you're coming with that.

It's slightly ambiguous, but because groupthink cannot ever be a description of an individual, we have to interpret all these answer choices as characteristics of the group's behavior.

So we'd read (E) as "the group carefully considers objections to majority positions".

You're also stretching the meaning of (E), making
"careful consideration of objections" = "carefully considering whether or not to object"

Those are definitely not the same. If you put "objections" as the object of the verb "to consider", it definitely means "to evaluate the merits of an objection".

(E) would have to be phrased more like "careful consideration before voicing objections to majority positions" to reflect that inner torment you were picturing.

[andrewgong01]

My interperation for "A" is different. I thought "A" was talking about adversaries outside the group and not internal group members that people dislike? That's why I thought "A" was correct ( no idea why I crossed out B though as I may have chosen B if I saw it) . My prephase was "mentally inefficient, bad choices" and "A" seems to also support this where the group now has delusional views on the enemies that are no longer rational since it says "unjustified". How did we know the adversary was alluding to people within a group and hence there would be no group cohesion to begin with?

[dp961]

My interperation for "A" is different. I thought "A" was talking about adversaries outside the group and not internal group members that people dislike? That's why I thought "A" was correct ( no idea why I crossed out B though as I may have chosen B if I saw it) . My prephase was "mentally inefficient, bad choices" and "A" seems to also support this where the group now has delusional views on the enemies that are no longer rational since it says "unjustified". How did we know the adversary was alluding to people within a group and hence there would be no group cohesion to begin with?

would really appreciate clarification on this as well, as I interpreted the answer choice to mean the same thing, that someone OUTSIDE of the group was leading the group to feel unjustified suspicion. If I assume that this adversary is someone outside of the group, is it the phrasing "unjustified suspicion" that does not align with the paragraph? Is that phrasing misrepresenting the word "closed-minded"?