Urban students frequently face challenges with reading comprehension even when provided with equivalent textbooks and academic programs. A research te...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
Urban students frequently face challenges with reading comprehension even when provided with equivalent textbooks and academic programs. A research team headed by Dr. Maria Santos explored whether collaborative learning contexts could impact individual academic achievement. The investigators monitored reading performance across various classroom arrangements throughout one school year, analyzing differences between high-achieving and low-achieving pupils. Their findings suggested that particular interpersonal interactions within study groups could account for the disparities in reading comprehension results.
Which discovery, if accurate, would most strongly validate the researchers' findings?
Both high-achieving and low-achieving pupils received access to the same reading resources during the entire research period.
High-achieving pupils showed a markedly greater tendency to participate in study groups where classmates actively contributed to collaborative discussions compared to low-achieving pupils.
High-achieving pupils generally originated from households with elevated socioeconomic backgrounds compared to low-achieving pupils.
At the research conclusion, reading performance demonstrated no relationship with group structure irrespective of the interpersonal interactions documented within study groups.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Urban students frequently face challenges with reading comprehension even when provided with equivalent textbooks and academic programs." |
|
| "A research team headed by Dr. Maria Santos explored whether collaborative learning contexts could impact individual academic achievement." |
|
| "The investigators monitored reading performance across various classroom arrangements throughout one school year, analyzing differences between high-achieving and low-achieving pupils." |
|
| "Their findings suggested that particular interpersonal interactions within study groups could account for the disparities in reading comprehension results." |
|
Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Visual Structure Map:
[PROBLEM] Urban students struggle with reading despite equal resources → [RESEARCH QUESTION] Can collaborative learning contexts help? → [METHOD] Monitor reading across classroom arrangements (1 year) → [FINDING] Interpersonal interactions in groups explain differences
Main Point: Research suggests that specific types of interpersonal interactions within study groups can explain why some urban students perform better in reading comprehension than others.
Argument Flow: The passage starts with a puzzling educational problem - urban students having reading difficulties despite equal resources. It then introduces research that investigated whether collaborative learning might be a factor. The study monitored different classroom arrangements and concluded that particular interpersonal interactions within study groups could account for the performance differences observed.
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 researchers concluded that "particular interpersonal interactions within study groups could account for the disparities in reading comprehension results"
- The right answer should provide evidence that directly connects interpersonal interactions in study groups with the performance differences they observed
- Key elements the correct answer must have:
- Show a clear connection between study group interactions and reading performance
- Demonstrate that high-achieving and low-achieving students had different experiences with interpersonal interactions in their groups
- Support the idea that these interactions are the explaining factor for the reading differences
- The right answer should show that high and low achievers had different types of interpersonal interactions in their study groups, with high achievers experiencing more beneficial collaborative interactions
Both high-achieving and low-achieving pupils received access to the same reading resources during the entire research period.
- States both groups had same reading resources throughout the study
- This doesn't validate the interpersonal interactions finding - it just confirms what we already knew from the opening sentence
- Actually makes the interpersonal interactions conclusion more important since it rules out resource differences as an explanation
High-achieving pupils showed a markedly greater tendency to participate in study groups where classmates actively contributed to collaborative discussions compared to low-achieving pupils.
- Shows high achievers participated more in groups with active collaborative discussions compared to low achievers
- This directly supports the researchers' conclusion about interpersonal interactions explaining the differences
- Provides concrete evidence that the two groups had different experiences with collaborative interactions
High-achieving pupils generally originated from households with elevated socioeconomic backgrounds compared to low-achieving pupils.
- Points to socioeconomic background differences as an explanation
- This would actually weaken the researchers' findings by suggesting another factor (family income) explains the reading differences
- Contradicts rather than validates their conclusion about study group interactions
At the research conclusion, reading performance demonstrated no relationship with group structure irrespective of the interpersonal interactions documented within study groups.
- States reading performance showed no relationship with group structure regardless of interactions
- This directly contradicts the researchers' findings
- Would completely invalidate their conclusion rather than validate it