Some studies have suggested that posture can influence cognition, but we should not overstate this phenomenon. A case in point:...
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
Some studies have suggested that posture can influence cognition, but we should not overstate this phenomenon. A case in point: In a 2014 study, Megan O'Brien and Alaa Ahmed had subjects stand or sit while making risky simulated economic decisions. Standing is more physically unstable and cognitively demanding than sitting; accordingly, O'Brien and Ahmed hypothesized that standing subjects would display more risk aversion during the decision-making tasks than sitting subjects did, since they would want to avoid further feelings of discomfort and complicated risk evaluations. But O'Brien and Ahmed actually found no difference in the groups' performance.
Which choice best states the main purpose of the text?
It argues that research findings about the effects of posture on cognition are often misunderstood, as in the case of O'Brien and Ahmed's study.
It presents the study by O'Brien and Ahmed to critique the methods and results reported in previous studies of the effects of posture on cognition.
It explains a significant problem in the emerging understanding of posture's effects on cognition and how O'Brien and Ahmed tried to solve that problem.
It discusses the study by O'Brien and Ahmed to illustrate why caution is needed when making claims about the effects of posture on cognition.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 'Some studies have suggested that posture can influence cognition, but we should not overstate this phenomenon.' |
|
| 'A case in point:' |
|
| 'In a 2014 study, Megan O'Brien and Alaa Ahmed had subjects stand or sit while making risky simulated economic decisions.' |
|
| 'Standing is more physically unstable and cognitively demanding than sitting;' |
|
| 'accordingly, O'Brien and Ahmed hypothesized that standing subjects would display more risk aversion during the decision-making tasks than sitting subjects did, since they would want to avoid further feelings of discomfort and complicated risk evaluations.' |
|
| 'But O'Brien and Ahmed actually found no difference in the groups' performance.' |
|
Part B: Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: We should be cautious about claims regarding posture's effects on cognition because research like O'Brien and Ahmed's study shows these effects may not be as significant as expected.
Argument Flow: The author opens with a warning not to overstate posture's cognitive effects, then uses a specific 2014 study as evidence for this caution. The study's failure to find the expected differences between standing and sitting subjects demonstrates why restraint is needed when making claims about posture-cognition relationships.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
- What's being asked? The main purpose of the entire text
- What type of answer do we need? A statement about what the author is trying to accomplish with this passage
- Any limiting keywords? 'Main purpose' means we need the overarching goal, not just what one part does
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- The passage opens with a warning about overstating posture effects on cognition
- It then provides a specific study as evidence for why this caution is needed
- The study failed to find expected differences, supporting the need for restraint
- The overall purpose seems to be using this study to demonstrate why we need to be careful about posture-cognition claims
It argues that research findings about the effects of posture on cognition are often misunderstood, as in the case of O'Brien and Ahmed's study.
✗ Incorrect
- Claims research findings are 'often misunderstood'
- The passage doesn't say findings are misunderstood, it says we shouldn't overstate the phenomenon
- This mischaracterizes the author's concern
It presents the study by O'Brien and Ahmed to critique the methods and results reported in previous studies of the effects of posture on cognition.
✗ Incorrect
- Says the passage critiques 'methods and results reported in previous studies'
- The passage doesn't critique any methods or previous studies
- O'Brien and Ahmed's study isn't being criticized, it's being used as supporting evidence
It explains a significant problem in the emerging understanding of posture's effects on cognition and how O'Brien and Ahmed tried to solve that problem.
✗ Incorrect
- Claims there's a 'significant problem' that O'Brien and Ahmed tried to 'solve'
- The researchers weren't trying to solve a problem, they were testing a hypothesis about posture effects
- The passage presents their study as evidence for caution, not as a solution attempt
It discusses the study by O'Brien and Ahmed to illustrate why caution is needed when making claims about the effects of posture on cognition.
✓ Correct
- States the passage discusses the study 'to illustrate why caution is needed'
- This perfectly matches our analysis
- The opening warns against overstating, then uses the study as evidence
- The study's null results demonstrate exactly why the author's initial caution was warranted