#23 - As a general rule, the larger a social group

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (B)

With regard to primates, the general rule is, the greater the size of the social group, the more time
spent by its members grooming each other—mostly to maintain social ties. And the greater the
average size of a group of primates, the bigger the neocortex (the source of higher thought in the
brain) tends to be.

It seems that early humans congregated in very large groups, based on the size of their large
neocortexes. And yet the evidence shows that, other than parents and their children, members of the
groups spent almost no time grooming others.

The question stem asks for a resolution of the paradox presented in the stimulus. How is it that these
early humans were able to gather in such large groups without the social grooming that brought other
primates together?

The correct answer choice will provide information that is consistent with both premises—that early
humans were somehow able to maintain social cohesion in very large groups, without the social
grooming that provides the basis for such group cohesion among other primates.

Answer choice (A): This choice was appealing to many test takers, as it provides some explanation
as to why early humans did not share the need for interactive social grooming, but it does not explain
how they were able to maintain social cohesion without it.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice; it is the one that provides an explanation
as to how humans gathered in very large groups without the social cohesion provided by social
grooming: language, as it turns out, is a much more effective way to maintain social ties within a
large group.

Answer choice (C): Those who chose this incorrect answer choice probably did so because it
provides such a reasonable explanation as to why early humans did not share the other primates’
need for social grooming. This choice fails, however, to explain how these humans were able to
maintain cohesive groups without social grooming, so it does not resolve the paradox and should be
ruled out of contention.

Answer choice (D): This answer does not explain how early humans (with their large neocortexes)
maintained social cohesion without social grooming. Regardless of whether early humans hunted
in small groups, this answer fails to resolve the paradox presented in the stimulus—the seeming
inconsistency between the large social groups that early humans were able to maintain, and the fact
that they spent almost no time on social grooming, which helped other primates maintain ties within
large social groups.

Answer choice (E): This choice provides that other primates with large neocortexes do take part in
social grooming—this does not answer the question of how early humans were able to maintain their
social cohesion without doing so; in fact, this choice expands the paradox, adding to the apparent
inconsistency between early humans’ large social groups and their lack of time spent on social
grooming.

[NeverMissing]

I found this question particularly difficult because it appears to me that two of the answer choices, perhaps even three, resolve the paradox. While I understand that the qualifier "most" in the question stem allows for such a possibility, it still took me quite a bit of time to answer this question because, as opposed to comparing one right answer to four incorrect answers, I felt like I was weighing the merits of two--possibly three--correct answers to find the MOST correct answer.

As far as I can see, both B and C resolve the paradox, though B resolves it more by introducing a link between social cohesion and an action other than grooming. I also feel like A might even resolve the paradox to some degree, since being more likely to groom oneself would most likely infer that less time would be spent being groomed by others.

My question is twofold: First, am I correct in assuming that answer choice C (and perhaps A) resolves the paradox by introducing reasons humans may not have groomed each other despite the larger neocortex (though their correctness is to a lesser degree than B)? Second, in situations when more than one answer is correct but one is ultimately more correct, is there a specific criteria one can generally look for to separate the right answer from the contenders that also may be correct, but to a lesser degree?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi NM,

These are two great questions. I want to start with the specifics of this stimulus before answering your question about multiple correct answers.

The stimulus gives us a large amount of information to work through, so here is the most concise way I can put it:

On the one hand,
1. increased size in neocortex reveals a proportional increase in primate group size
2. large primate group sizes generally leads to more time spent grooming one another.
3. primates groom one another in order to keep social cohesion.

size of NC usually group size generally social grooming


And on the other hand,
4. Early human neocortex size tells us that they lived in large groups
5. Early humans mostly didn't groom one another


So we know that humans are an exception to the rule that the larger the group size, the more social grooming we will see in primates. If primates use social grooming to keep group cohesion intact, why didn't early humans do so as well? That's the discrepancy that we have to explain.

This is not a true paradox, since the stimulus already tells us that social grooming is a only a general rule. We still have to figure out why early humans didn't do it.


Choice (A) explains that early humans were more likely to groom themselves than are other primates. This explains something about their behavior, but it doesn't resolve the information. If primates need to social groom to keep cohesion, then how were early humans able to survive in large groups without grooming one another? In other words, the idea that early humans kept to themselves leaves unanswered the question of how human groups cohered.

Choice (C) tells us that having less body hair meant that there was less of a need for early humans to socially groom. However, this only gets us part of the way to an explanation. having less hair lessens the need for social grooming, but living in quite large groups increases it. How can those two factors combined get us to "virtually no time grooming one another"?


Choice (B) is the only answer that explains why there was no need for any social grooming. If language is better for social cohesion, and early humans could talk to one another, why would they spend time grooming instead of talking? I would fully expect early humans to use language instead of grooming, which is exactly what the conclusion tells us: early humans spent close to zero time grooming one another.


On Resolve the Paradox questions you must address all the facts of the stimulus, and allow all the facts to be true. So answer choices (A) and (C) both ignore an important premise. Choice (A) actually deepens the mystery of how these primates managed to live together when they didn't do anything to cohere as a group. Choice (C) gets us close, but seems to shift the importance of grooming to hygiene, and ignores the social aspect of it.


When you see multiple answer choices that look correct, chances are that you are misreading parts of the stimulus or misunderstanding the question itself. I think that in this case, you might have a slightly limited misunderstanding of what Resolve questions are asking you to do. Try some more of these, and watch out for answers that only address some of the facts.

[NeverMissing]

This helps alot, thanks! I was definitely focusing too much on one part of the stimulus, while de-emphasizing how the whole stimulus makes its argument as a whole.