Conventional theories of rhetoric hold that presenting information as coming from credentialed experts increases that information's credibility. When ...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
Conventional theories of rhetoric hold that presenting information as coming from credentialed experts increases that information's credibility. When communications researcher Sungkyoung Lee and her colleagues tested messages seeking volunteers for clinical trials, however, they found that participants in their study judged recruitment messages from former trial volunteers as significantly more credible than messages from doctors (i.e., credentialed experts). One reason for this may be that the doctors' status as credentialed experts wasn't ignored but rather was outweighed by participants' views of the experiential relevance of the two types of messengers; that is, participants may have reacted the way they did because ______
Which choice most logically completes the text?
messages from former trial volunteers depicted clinical trials as being more positive experiences than did messages from doctors.
participants did not have enough experience to evaluate the credibility of the doctors' messages but did have enough experience to evaluate the credibility of former trial volunteers' messages.
the fact that former trial volunteers went through the same experience that participants were contemplating while doctors did not was more important to participants than the doctors' status as credentialed experts was.
participants regarded the experiences of both the doctors and former trial volunteers as relevant to the subject of clinical trials but were skeptical of the doctors' status as credentialed experts.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Conventional theories of rhetoric hold that presenting information as coming from credentialed experts increases that information's credibility." |
|
| "When communications researcher Sungkyoung Lee and her colleagues tested messages seeking volunteers for clinical trials, however, they found that participants in their study judged recruitment messages from former trial volunteers as significantly more credible than messages from doctors (i.e., credentialed experts)." |
|
| "One reason for this may be that the doctors' status as credentialed experts wasn't ignored but rather was outweighed by participants' views of the experiential relevance of the two types of messengers;" |
|
| "that is, participants may have reacted the way they did because ______" |
|
Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Lee's research challenges conventional credibility theory by showing that experiential relevance can outweigh expert credentials when people evaluate message credibility.
Argument Flow: The passage establishes conventional wisdom about expert credibility, presents research that contradicts this view, offers a preliminary explanation focusing on experiential relevance, and then seeks to complete the specific reasoning behind participants' behavior.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
This is a fill-in-the-blank question asking us to choose the best logical connector. The answer must create the right relationship between what comes before and after the blank.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The correct answer needs to explain why "experiential relevance" mattered more than expert credentials
- Former trial volunteers had gone through the same experience that current participants were considering, while doctors had not
- This shared experience appears to be what made former volunteers more credible messengers
messages from former trial volunteers depicted clinical trials as being more positive experiences than did messages from doctors.
✗ Incorrect
- This focuses on the content of messages (positive vs. negative portrayal)
- But the passage is about source credibility, not message content
- Doesn't connect to "experiential relevance" concept
participants did not have enough experience to evaluate the credibility of the doctors' messages but did have enough experience to evaluate the credibility of former trial volunteers' messages.
✗ Incorrect
- Suggests participants couldn't evaluate doctors but could evaluate volunteers
- This doesn't make logical sense - why would medical knowledge be harder to evaluate?
- Misses the point about experiential relevance being more valuable
the fact that former trial volunteers went through the same experience that participants were contemplating while doctors did not was more important to participants than the doctors' status as credentialed experts was.
✓ Correct
- Directly explains that shared experience (volunteers went through trials) was more important than professional credentials
- Perfectly matches the "experiential relevance" concept from the passage
- Provides the logical "that is" clarification the sentence structure requires
participants regarded the experiences of both the doctors and former trial volunteers as relevant to the subject of clinical trials but were skeptical of the doctors' status as credentialed experts.
✗ Incorrect
- Claims participants were "skeptical" of doctors' credentials
- But passage says credentials "wasn't ignored" - participants weren't skeptical, just valued experience more
- Misrepresents the relationship between the two types of credibility