Q16 - Researchers investigating the accuracy of

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Inference (most supported)

Stimulus Breakdown:
In a study, people tried to pick a criminal out of a police lineup, but the criminal wasn't actually in the lineup. If they were warned in advance that the criminal might not be there, they only falsely picked someone 38% of the time. If they weren't warned, they falsely picked someone 78% of the time.

Answer Anticipation:
Most Supported Inference is usually about spelling out a causal difference maker. Since our 78% vs. 38% is connected to whether or not people we're warned the suspect might not be present, we can infer that "if we assume the suspect is there, we're more likely to force a false positive. If we have reason to believe that all the choices might be wrong, we're better able to avoid making a wrong choice."

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This information had nothing to do with a contrast between eyewitnesses and people who were only told what to look for. All the people in the study were eyewitnesses.

(B) Too strong. We have no idea what people "tend to" want to do. Also, "desire to satisfy the expectations" would be the same for both the 78% and the 38% group, so this isn't hitting on a the causal difference maker.

(C) Too strong. We can't generalize about "most people" in any situation involving an authority figure asking them to lie. More importantly, we don't know if in this study someone asked the participants to say the criminal was in the lineup even if he wasn't. All we know is that the 78% group wasn't warned that the criminal might not be there.

(D) Too strong. This says "If people aren't given information beyond visual clues, they can't recognize physical similarities among a group of people." Say what? Who is trying to recognize the physical similarities among the group of people in the lineup? People are trying to pick the criminal out of the lineup.

(E) YES, although definitely strongly worded. We'd have to remind ourselves that this is Most Supported and we're looking for best available. This at least reinforces the causal difference-maker, so we have some support for it. By being warned that the criminal might not be in the lineup, people presumably expected less to see the criminal, and that's why only 38% forced themselves to make an incorrect identification.

Takeaway/Pattern: When we see a statistical anomaly that varies according to thing X, then we have some support for the idea that X has a causal influence on the anomaly. Most Supported Inference questions often zero in on restating these causal difference makers.

#officialexplanation