Q4 - Two randomly selected groups of 30

[jrany12]

I can see why B is the answer, but I chose A. Why is A wrong? Also, is it safe to assume that stories with more creativity were ranked higher, even though nothing about judging criteria is mentioned?

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question.

Now, we're trying to explain the difference between the average ranking of the two groups' stories. Why did the people who thought they were competing for prizes write stories that the judges liked less?

(B) is correct because we can make the small leap from "stereotypical stories that show little creativity" to stories that judges would rank lower. You're right that this does require an assumption on our part, but it's a very small one -- it's rather unlikely that judges would prefer stereotypical, uncreative stories -- and the other four answers clearly don't help explain the difference between the two groups' rankings at all (remember, we're charged with picking the answer that most explains the difference; it doesn't have to be 100% perfect):

(A) is incorrect because it doesn't explain why the "prize" group's stories were rated lower than the other group. Okay, the cash prizes were too small to motivate them, but the other group wasn't offered any prize -- why would they be more motivated? So this doesn't explain the difference.

(C) would apply equally to both groups, so it doesn't explain the difference.

(D) is out because there's no indication that either group's stories were more realistic.

(E) would apply equally to both groups, like (C), so it's no good either.

Does that answer your question?

[like333]

I chose A because to me people that are paid very little tend to do little and if you were not paid and no financial motive you tend to look at it as doing a favor for someone else and do a better job. For example, if your elderly neighbor asked you to do a small job, rake her leaves for example, I could realistically see someone doing a better job when money isn't exchanged because of your standards of what is right and wrong than if you were offered a nominal sum of money where you think to yourself "I'm doing 2 hours of work for $10. Screw it"
Maybe this is an outside thought coming into the LSAT but I see it as completely conceivable that this could be true. This idea was in my head from reading a book last week called "Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely. He talks about this exact same concept in Chapter 4.

[rostov]

They were both randomly selected groups. They did not choose to be on the prize group or on the no prize group. It's inconsistent to do something worse when you're (possibly) paid than when you're not, since you're receiving something. If not this, than it's at least a little odd, since you can always deny the money. In any case, the people in both groups didn't decide and were random, so you assume near equality in outlooks.

Besides, the reason for not doing as well, according to A, it's because it was too small of a prize, when the others received an even smaller prize.

I hope I didn't confuse you.

[rsmithpt267]

Can someone expand on why A is wrong. The way I read the question, Group 1 was paid $1 to come up with a story for the contest. Group 2 was paid nothing to come up with a story. Thus the cash prize is insignificant and maybe group 1 just produced a worse quality of story. This is exactly what A is saying.

However, when I read B, how do we know that Group 1's stories were not creative and that is why the judges ranked them lower? To me there are too many factors at play. Maybe group 1's story had worse character development, maybe the plot did not follow as a good story should etc. I don't see how we can make the leap from lower ranked to "stereotypical stories that show little creativity."

I can write a very creative story that gets low rankings for other reasons, meanwhile someone can write a remake of Winnie the Pooh and get a much higher ranking. It all depends on the judges criteria, and we are told nothing about that. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

[andrew.penry]

Can someone expand on why A is wrong. The way I read the question, Group 1 was paid $1 to come up with a story for the contest. Group 2 was paid nothing to come up with a story. Thus the cash prize is insignificant and maybe group 1 just produced a worse quality of story. This is exactly what A is saying.

However, when I read B, how do we know that Group 1's stories were not creative and that is why the judges ranked them lower? To me there are too many factors at play. Maybe group 1's story had worse character development, maybe the plot did not follow as a good story should etc. I don't see how we can make the leap from lower ranked to "stereotypical stories that show little creativity."

I can write a very creative story that gets low rankings for other reasons, meanwhile someone can write a remake of Winnie the Pooh and get a much higher ranking. It all depends on the judges criteria, and we are told nothing about that. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!

So with A, it's saying that the CASH did not motivate them enough to write well. Well, if that was true, then the other group wouldn't be motivated either, this doesn't explain the paradox.

[vstoever]

My analysis
A. This still does not actually explain why the ones with prizes ranked ON AVERAGE significantly lower.
B. This actually explains why they may have scored lower on average. Even though we don’t know what grounds they were judged on, this helps explain the paradox.
C. This definitely does not help to explain the paradox why the group with prizes scored significantly lower
D. This still does not help to explain the paradox why the group with prizes scored significantly lower
E. Even if they were not explained what the standards were, WHY did the group with prizes score significantly lower ON AVERAGE? Does not resolve the paradox!!

[KayM793]

I get this question wrong as well. I'm really bothered by these "small leaps" I have to make answering these question...I usually think this is not what the stimulus says so cross them out...ugh

The way I'm looking at A is that A says "stories of high quality" while it's not necessarily true that they need to be "high quality" to be better than those in B. They can be average quality yet still better if B is of especially low quality...

Just throwing my two cents here