Linguist Deborah Tannen has cautioned against framing contentious issues in terms of two highly competitive perspectives, such as pro versus...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
Linguist Deborah Tannen has cautioned against framing contentious issues in terms of two highly competitive perspectives, such as pro versus con. According to Tannen, this debate-driven approach can strip issues of their complexity and, when used in front of an audience, can be less informative than the presentation of multiple perspectives in a noncompetitive format. To test Tannen's hypothesis, students conducted a study in which they showed participants one of three different versions of local news commentary about the same issue. Each version featured a debate between two commentators with opposing views, a panel of three commentators with various views, or a single commentator.
Which finding from the students' study, if true, would most strongly support Tannen's hypothesis?
On average, participants perceived commentators in the debate as more knowledgeable about the issue than commentators in the panel.
On average, participants perceived commentators in the panel as more knowledgeable about the issue than the single commentator.
On average, participants who watched the panel correctly answered more questions about the issue than those who watched the debate or the single commentator did.
On average, participants who watched the single commentator correctly answered more questions about the issue than those who watched the debate did.
Looking at this Command of Evidence question, I need to work through the passage systematically to understand Tannen's hypothesis before determining what evidence would support it.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Linguist Deborah Tannen has cautioned against framing contentious issues in terms of two highly competitive perspectives, such as pro versus con." |
|
| "According to Tannen, this debate-driven approach can strip issues of their complexity and, when used in front of an audience, can be less informative than the presentation of multiple perspectives in a noncompetitive format." |
|
| "To test Tannen's hypothesis, students conducted a study in which they showed participants one of three different versions of local news commentary about the same issue." |
|
| "Each version featured a debate between two commentators with opposing views, a panel of three commentators with various views, or a single commentator." |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Tannen believes debate formats are less informative than multiple non-competitive perspectives, and students designed a study to test this hypothesis.
Argument Flow: The passage presents Tannen's criticism of debate-driven approaches as overly simplistic and less informative than multiple perspective formats. It then describes a study specifically designed to test whether this hypothesis holds true by comparing three different commentary formats.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? Which study finding would most strongly support Tannen's hypothesis?
What type of answer do we need? Evidence that validates Tannen's claim that debate formats are less informative than multiple non-competitive perspective formats.
Any limiting keywords? "Most strongly support" means we need the finding that provides the clearest, most direct evidence for Tannen's position.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- Tannen's hypothesis has two key components: debate formats (two competitive perspectives) strip complexity and are less informative than multiple perspectives in non-competitive formats
- The right answer should show evidence that the panel format (three commentators with various views - representing multiple non-competitive perspectives) was more informative than the debate format (two commentators with opposing views)
- The finding should demonstrate that participants learned more or gained better understanding from the panel format compared to the debate format, since Tannen claims the debate approach is "less informative"
On average, participants perceived commentators in the debate as more knowledgeable about the issue than commentators in the panel.
✗ Incorrect
- This suggests participants saw debate commentators as more knowledgeable than panel commentators
- This would actually contradict Tannen's hypothesis by suggesting the debate format appeared more credible
On average, participants perceived commentators in the panel as more knowledgeable about the issue than the single commentator.
✗ Incorrect
- This compares panel commentators to the single commentator in terms of perceived knowledge
- While it suggests the panel format has some advantage, it doesn't compare panel to debate format
On average, participants who watched the panel correctly answered more questions about the issue than those who watched the debate or the single commentator did.
✓ Correct
- This shows participants who watched the panel correctly answered more questions than those who watched either the debate or single commentator
- This directly supports Tannen's hypothesis by demonstrating that the panel format (multiple perspectives, non-competitive) was more informative than the debate format
On average, participants who watched the single commentator correctly answered more questions about the issue than those who watched the debate did.
✗ Incorrect
- This shows single commentator participants outperformed debate participants
- While this suggests debate format has problems, it doesn't support Tannen's specific claim that multiple non-competitive perspectives are better