#14 - Researcher: People are able to tell whether a person

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[jwheeler]

Is an assumption in this question that primate biology would enable us to pick up on genetic predispositions? It seemed like a bit of a stretch to get C for me, even though none of the other answer choices were great.

[Brook Miscoski]

jwheeler,

It is perfectly legit to pick (C) because it is the least horrid choice. That was pretty much my thought when I first did this question. The more step by step explanation of my reasoning follows:

Stimulus: Says that since people can identify the same thing by the same method about both humans and chimps, and both are primates, it's because of biology and not just culture.

My reaction: That doesn't really offer any evidence to show that biology plays a role; it could still be completely cultural.

Question stem: asks me to strengthen the stimulus.

(A) Weakens the argument that primate biology is the reason.
(B) Argument is only about dominance, so other personality traits are off topic.
(C) Genetics sounds like biology, so I'll keep it.
(D) WTAF does this have to do with anything?
(E) "Some" of the photos might mean 2 out of 2,000. Also, how could the results show something reliable about individual dominance if the photos were composites of several individuals? This choice makes no sense.

Okay, (C) works for me, move on.

That's a perfectly good approach to this question--solid reasons for getting rid of the other choices, and (C) uses a biology word which sort of strengthens the argument that people are responding to a biological cue and not a cultural cue.

[heartofsunshine]

Hi there,

I was between B and C. I couldn't really put together how C strengthened the argument, thinking that just because it's a genetic predisposition which seemed to work, how does that make it that humans biologically would be able to tell? For example, the person A looks at a picture of person B with a neutral expression. Person B is extroverted. Person A is not, however can still tell that Person B is extroverted. So if this extroversion is a genetic factor, Person B has it and Person A does not. How does this help person A see it?

B didn't seem like a good answer either but I ultimately picked it because it said they can identify a wider range of pictures of humans vs chimpanzee. I took this to mean that since it's easier for them to spot traits in humans (it's partly culture) and since it's less in chimpanzee (its partly biology) therefore strengthening the conclusion that it's acquired through both means. It seemed like a bit of a stretch, but I don't know.

Where am I going wrong? Thanks!

[James Finch]

Hi Heart of Sunshine,

This is a causal stimulus, so to strengthen it, we need to choose an answer choice that does one of the following, in rough order of most to least common:

1) Eliminates an alternate cause

2) Shows the same cause and same effect

3) Shows no cause, no effect

4) Eliminates possibility of reverse causation (rare and not logically applicable here).

5) Bolsters the data used as evidence for the causal connection

(B) doesn't actually help, as one key part of the stimulus is that all primates are genetically similar and thus can recognize facial expressions across species. So making this distinction between chimps and humans doesn't help as if anything, it runs contrary to the evidence in the stimulus.

(C) is correct because it shows another situation in which we see the same cause (genetics) lead to the same effect (behaviors), just with a more specific causal linkage in between (assertiveness). The genetic predisposition to assertiveness helps explain how the people are able to identify expressions in both chimps and humans.

Hope this clears things up!

[VamosRafa19]

Hi Heart of Sunshine,

This is a causal stimulus, so to strengthen it, we need to choose an answer choice that does one of the following, in rough order of most to least common:

1) Eliminates an alternate cause

2) Shows the same cause and same effect

3) Shows no cause, no effect

4) Eliminates possibility of reverse causation (rare and not logically applicable here).

5) Bolsters the data used as evidence for the causal connection

(B) doesn't actually help, as one key part of the stimulus is that all primates are genetically similar and thus can recognize facial expressions across species. So making this distinction between chimps and humans doesn't help as if anything, it runs contrary to the evidence in the stimulus.

(C) is correct because it shows another situation in which we see the same cause (genetics) lead to the same effect (behaviors), just with a more specific causal linkage in between (assertiveness). The genetic predisposition to assertiveness helps explain how the people are able to identify expressions in both chimps and humans.

Hope this clears things up!

"key part of the stimulus is that all primates are genetically similar and thus can recognize facial expressions across species." What exactly points to this relationship? I thought the key point was that humans could recognize personality traits about primates from facial expressions. Which is why I picked B, I thought it strengthened the position that humans could personality traits expressions in other primates (humans) and it was even better because they share more biology with humans than chimps. Is the stimulus saying that chimps could recognize humans that are dominant by looking at an expressionless face?

[Adam Tyson]

Definitely not, VamosRafa19! We don't know what a chimpanzee would be capable of in this context. But the stimulus is saying that the cause of this ability in humans is something genetic that we share with other primates. It's our primate biology that allows us to accurately identify certain behavioral characteristics of other primates based on pictures that do not clearly display that behavior. We need an answer that supports a genetic cause rather than a social one. A classic "nature vs nurture" causal argument.

Answer B appears to do the opposite, as it suggests that our ability may be more social (nurture) than genetic (nature). We do better with those with whom we share a social context (other humans) than with primates from a different social context (chimps). It's still possible that the ability is genetic, since we probably have more genes in common with other humans than with chimpanzees, but it raises this other possible cause, which is a problem.

Answer C strengthens by attacking the possibility that the traits we recognized were based on social factors (nurture). If those traits are genetically determined, there's more reason to believe we recognize them because of common genes rather than common cultures.