Journal: In several psychological studies,

Answer choices

1. A

   Weaker Impact18% picked this

   Regardless of the truth of what the subjects were later told, the beliefs based on the original statements were,

   This helps weaken somewhat, because if the people who persisted in believing the new beliefs are believing mostly true things, it feels like it could help us make the counterargument that these people did have credible reason to believe them. They weren't just "stuck" believing them, because of the psychological trick of the experiment. But this answer doesn't establish that the subjects knew these beliefs were mostly correct or that the subjects had any credible evidence. An answer that establishes the subjects persisted in holding onto the new beliefs because they were aware of credible evidence for them is a stronger counter.

   18%
2. B

   Out of Scope: unrealistic4% picked this

   It is unrealistic to expect people to keep track of the original basis of their beliefs, and to revise a belief when

   This answer sounds like it's trying to shield these research subjects from the author's critical glare. "Jeez, author --- give them a break, alright? Yes, they look stupid because they're still believing the things they came to believe based on your phony statements, but people can't be expected to remember the origin of their beliefs or to "update their beliefs" when the basis of a belief is undercut." No one is blaming these research subjects for their behavior. The author isn't concluding, "They should have stopped believing those newly acquired beliefs". The author is descriptively (neutrally) concluding, "They continued believing those new beliefs even though (I assume) they had no credible reason to."

   4%
3. C

   Strengthens, if anything2% picked this

   The statements originally given to the subjects would be highly misleading

   This has the effect of making the original statements sound like fishy statements. "Even if true" suggests that there's a good chance they're not true. And even if they technically qualify as true, they're misleading. If people are stubbornly hanging onto beliefs even when they're told that the "unlikely / misleading" statements on which they based those beliefs are false, that seems to help the author. We don't have to worry whether it actually strengthens. We know it doesn't weaken, since it doesn't give us a way to argue that these subjects actually did have credible evidence to support the beliefs they were retaining.

   2%
4. D

   Correct72% picked this

   Most of the subjects had acquired confirmation of their newly acquired beliefs by the time they were told that

   Why this is right

   This goes with our anticipated objection. By the time people were told that Obama isn't really planning to build passenger ships to Mars, they had found out that Elon Musk genuinely was. Thus, when the researchers said, "The original statements we told you were false", the subjects were like, "Oh, were those statements false? Hmm. Cute. Well, ... the beliefs I ended up with on the basis of your false statements happened to be true (I know this, because I've acquired confirmation of them since then). So, I'm sticking with my new beliefs, no thanks to you mischievous researchers."

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   72%
5. E

   No Impact3% picked this

   Most of the subjects were initially skeptical of the statements originally

   If we had no better answers, maybe we could say that initial skepticism might prompt these research subjects to do some independent research on their own, and that that's why they now retain their newly acquired beliefs. They do have credible evidence! But naturally this answer isn't as compelling as the correct one, which spells out the idea that the subjects have their own credible evidence.

   3%