#27 - Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[reop6780]

It is one of the questions that I find challenging either due to the way it is phrased or my inability to read the implication behind it.

The correct answer is B. I did not find any contender while going through 5 answer choices; I did not find any answer choices appealing at all.

The whole passage is concerned with pitfall of cohesiveness, group-thinking, while positive side of cohesiveness is also introduced.

The author is worried of cohesiveness being developed into group-thinking.

All of the sudden, the answer B states that

if high degree of cohesiveness it is NOT difficult to examine all relevant options critically in reaching decisions.

High cohesiveness also has its pitfalls and the author certainly discusses it.

Members of highly cohesive groups do not always use the freedom to deviate from one particular opinion due to overestimation..etc.

Why is this the correct answer?

[Adam Tyson]

Two things to know about this question: 1) a question like this that asks you to determine what the author would agree with is a special kind of must be true question. You need evidence in the passage to directly support your answer choice, but the answer will not be something the author actually said - it's a projection, an inference. In this way it is very much like a MBT question on Logical Reasoning. 2) Your analysis of answer B, while correctly identifying the answer as conditional, is backwards - you have made a mistaken reversal.

Visiting briefly the rules for conditional reasoning, when faced with the special indicator words "unless", "except", "until" and "without", you first need to identify the "unless" condition as being your necessary condition. It belongs to the right of your conditional diagram arrow. Here, that condition is that it's likely the group is highly cohesive. Now, whatever is left in the relationship must be negated, and that negated term becomes your sufficient condition and belongs to the left of your arrow. In this case that is the statement that it's difficult for the group to consider everything. Negated, that's ""If it's not difficult to consider everything". The result is:

If it's not difficult to consider everything --> the group is probably highly cohesive

You're right that highly cohesive groups can fall victim to groupthink, but before you get that bad you can find a sweet spot of high cohesiveness and good decision making. Only there will your group be considering everything. If you find it easy to consider all relevant factors then you can't be non-cohesive, where the dominant factors are fear and silence, nor can you be in a groupthink mode, where you stop being critical and start believing the group is infallible and needs no critical analysis.

Getting that conditional statement right should fix things and make your analysis much clearer. Hope that helped!

[avengingangel]

Thanks for the explanation for the correct answer—it's what I was mostly thinking in my head, after reading this question, but didn't feel it was supported in this passage (It seemed more of my outside/real-world knowledge about the topic, which I know is a no-no).

Can you please identify what part(s) in the passage support the "examining all relevant options critically" as a characteristic of cohesiveness ?? I feel the passage only talks about how, once you get to groupthink mode, you're NOT able to do that. The "sweet spot" thing Adam mentioned totally makes sense to me, but again, I just don't see the connection in the text of the passage.

Thanks!!

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi avengingangel,

It is supported in a number of places, particularly the phrase "compliance out of fear of recrimination" and then lines 15-20. Take a look at those portions of the passage and see if you can find the justification for B I'm talking about!

[avengingangel]

Right, but "all relevant options critically" ??

Where does it imply that the author would think that just because one can freely express their thoughts or dissent in a more cohesive, supportive environment then they would also think that individuals are looking at relevant options critically

Example of non-critical option in a highly-cohesive group:

"I respect the path the group is taking in recommending we adopt stricter background checks when purchasing guns, but everyone in my family owns without a background check and they've never misused their guns."

[Robert Carroll]

avengingangel,

Where does it imply that the author would think that just because one can freely express their thoughts or dissent in a more cohesive, supportive environment then they would also think that individuals are looking at relevant options critically

The passage does not support this because this is the Mistaken Reversal of what answer choice (B) says. The passage does not claim that cohesiveness of a group ensures critical examination, but rather that one prerequisite for critical examination is cohesiveness of the group.

Take Adam's diagram:

it's not difficult to consider everything the group is probably highly cohesive

This follows from the Unless Equation. Thus, if there is a situation where it's not difficult to engage in critical examination of all options, there must be a cohesive group present, not necessarily vice versa.

I hope this helps!

Robert Carroll

[avengingangel]

Ah! Mistaken Reversal! Thank you !!!!

[wrjackson1]

Hi I was hoping someone could explain why Answer choice (E) is incorrect. For me, both groupthink and low cohesion seemed to have the result that self-censorship was an issue

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, WRJackson,

This Must Be True question requires us to find evidence in the passage to back up a statement in the credited answer choice. Answer choice (E) is a statement about "noncohesive" groups. Where in the passage do we have evidence about noncohesive groups? Lines 1-20 of this passage provide evidence about noncohesive groups, sometimes directly, as in line 6, or indirectly by contrasting noncohesive group behavior with cohesive group dynamics.

Do we have any evidence in these lines about whether or not noncohesive groups might be susceptible to "groupthink?" No, "groupthink" does not appear until line 36 in a discussion of the pitfalls of cohesive groups. We have no direct evidence connecting noncohesive groups to groupthink. This is a could be true answer, a frequent trap on Must Be True questions.

One lesson you should learn from this problem is to look for the answers to specific and concept reference problems close to the area in the passage where the concept comes up. Since noncohesive groups and groupthink aapear in separate parts of the passage, it is unlikely we will be able to make an inference connecting the two concepts.

I hope this helps!

[ct325]

Why is A wrong?