In a study, pairs of trained dogs

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact9% picked this

   Were dogs who were accustomed to receiving regular rewards prior to the study more inclined

   We're trying to explain the behavior of the dogs who stopped obeying, but all the dogs in the study obeyed the order (by that I mean that we are told "after both obeyed, one was given a treat and the other wasn't"). So since the behavior we're trying to explain or interpret comes after both dogs have obeyed, it doesn't really matter which dog was more inclined to obey in the first place. They both obeyed. Since they both obeyed, we wouldn't know how to use this answer choice to judge what happened next. Which dogs were the ones who weren't given a treat? Dogs who were accustomed to receiving regular rewards, the other dogs, a mix of both? Since we don't know which type of dogs were given the treat vs. not given the treat, we can't use this answer as a possible alternate explanation for anything.

   9%
2. B

   Correct68% picked this

   Is there a decline in obedience if rewards are withheld from both dogs

   Why this is right

   If the answer is YES, then it badly weakens the argument. It wouldn't be plausible to blame the decline in obedience on "unfair treatment" if there was still a decline in obedience when neither dog got a treat. If treats are withheld from both dogs, then the dogs are being treated "fairly". (This argument is intending fair treatment to mean that 'both dogs were treated the same', not to mean 'a dog was given a treat in exchange for having obeyed a command'.) If the answer is NO, then it strengthens the argument. It would act like a "No Cause, No Effect" strengthener. By withholding treats from both dogs, you're no longer treating one of them unfairly. If it were the case that "when unfair treatment was absent, then decline in obedience was absent", then that would greatly strengthen the plausibility that unfair treatment is the causal difference-maker, not just the lack of being given a treat.

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

   68%
3. C

   No Impact / Weak Impact15% picked this

   Were dogs who received treats in one trial ever used as dogs that did not receive

   Whether we say, "YES, at least one dog got to be in the treat group and the no-treat group" or whether we say "NO, dogs were either assigned to the treat group or the no-treat group for all the trials", it doesn't make a difference. It's not an indictment of a study if you take your initial pool of (hopefully representative) subjects and then randomly assign half of them to one group and the other half to the other group. That is how respectable medical clinical trials work (half the group gets the drug / half gets a placebo). So the NO answer does not weaken. The YES answer might feel like it weakens if we were to think, "if a dog was previously given treats and now is in a trial where they're not being given treats, couldn't this be an alternate explanation for why they disobey? They're not mad that they're being treated unfairly; they're mad that they're no longer getting a treat like they used to." Two things: 1) "treated unfairly" is broad enough that it could actually still apply to that scenario -- the dog who used to be given treats and now isn't feels like it's being treated unfairly (not in respect to the other dog paired with it in the trial, but in respect to how it got used to being treated in the previous trial ... "No fair! You used to give me treats for obeying.") 2) the quantity is super weak. Since the question is posed as "were dogs who were given treats in one trial ever given no-treats in a different trial", this is only talking about at least one dog. It also doesn't specify any chronological sequence, for whether this dog who played both roles was a treat-received dog or a treat-denied dog first. Thus, it's really hard to get an Alternate Explanation answer out of YES that has much punch or that is clearly different from "That's unfair! I feel cheated"

   15%
4. D

   Too Weak5% picked this

   Were there any cases in which the dog who was given a reward became more inclined

   If we were thinking about an alternate explanation like, "It's not unfairness that's leading to disobeying; it's just the lack of a treat.", then we might be attracted to this answer. After all, it seems to deal with the connection between getting a treat and obeying (not the connection between unfair treatment and disobeying). But if we say "YES, there was at least one case in which a dog who was getting a reward became more inclined to obey the command", that isn't strongly suggesting an alternate explanation. And if we say, "NO, none of the dogs given a reward became extra inclined to obey the command", that also isn't any sort of objection.

   5%
5. E

   Too Precise3% picked this

   How many repetitions were required before the unrewarded dogs began to

   We aren't going to learn anything about what caused the decline in obedience among the unrewarded dogs by learning the precise number of reps before they began to disobey. It's not like we can say, "If it only took 5 repetitions, then it wasn't about unfairness." There's not going to be any common sense link between how many repetitions it took and what the underlying cause was for disobeying.

   3%