Economists following rational choice theory argue that environmental education initiatives fail to modify people's real-world conservation practices i...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
Economists following rational choice theory argue that environmental education initiatives fail to modify people's real-world conservation practices in everyday situations. To examine this claim, researchers Sarah Kim and David Okonkwo investigated suburban community residents, separating subjects into two groups: individuals who had finished an extensive sustainability training program (roughly 60% of qualified residents took part) and demographically equivalent residents who had received no environmental education. Kim and Okonkwo monitored subjects' domestic energy usage patterns throughout the subsequent twelve months.
Which result from Kim and Okonkwo's study, if accurate, would most strongly contradict the rational choice framework's claim?
Subjects' energy usage patterns were mainly determined by household income levels, irrespective of sustainability workshop attendance.
Training program attendees decreased their energy usage substantially more than non-attendees throughout the year after the program.
Non-attendees demonstrated moderate gains in energy efficiency relative to regional standards, despite lacking formal environmental instruction.
Training program attendees and non-attendees alike elevated their energy usage during winter periods relative to summer periods.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 'Economists following rational choice theory argue that environmental education initiatives fail to modify people's real-world conservation practices in everyday situations.' |
|
| 'To examine this claim, researchers Sarah Kim and David Okonkwo investigated suburban community residents, separating subjects into two groups:' |
|
| 'individuals who had finished an extensive sustainability training program (roughly 60% of qualified residents took part)' |
|
| 'and demographically equivalent residents who had received no environmental education.' |
|
| 'Kim and Okonkwo monitored subjects' domestic energy usage patterns throughout the subsequent twelve months.' |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Researchers Kim and Okonkwo designed a study to test whether environmental education actually changes real-world conservation behavior by comparing trained and untrained groups.
Argument Flow: The passage starts with economists' theoretical claim that environmental education doesn't change actual behavior. To test this, researchers set up a controlled comparison between residents who completed sustainability training and those who didn't, then tracked their actual energy usage over a full year.
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 economists claim environmental education fails to modify real-world conservation practices
- To contradict this claim most strongly, we'd need results showing that people who received environmental education actually changed their behavior measurably compared to those who didn't receive education
- The change would need to be in the direction of better conservation practices
Subjects' energy usage patterns were mainly determined by household income levels, irrespective of sustainability workshop attendance.
- This shows that income, not education, determines energy usage
- Actually supports the rational choice claim by suggesting education doesn't matter
Training program attendees decreased their energy usage substantially more than non-attendees throughout the year after the program.
- Shows training program attendees decreased energy usage substantially more than non-attendees
- Directly demonstrates that environmental education DID modify real-world conservation practices
- This is exactly what would contradict the economists' claim most strongly
Non-attendees demonstrated moderate gains in energy efficiency relative to regional standards, despite lacking formal environmental instruction.
- Shows non-attendees improved energy efficiency despite no formal training
- Doesn't address whether environmental education works - focuses on the control group
Training program attendees and non-attendees alike elevated their energy usage during winter periods relative to summer periods.
- Shows both groups behaved similarly
- Doesn't distinguish between the effectiveness of the training program
- This supports rather than contradicts the rational choice claim