A question about two texts tests how one author’s account relates to another’s conclusion. Read the question, then put each text’s claim and reason into a few words. For a study comparing groups, track what stays the same and what changes to see what a new account must explain. Ask whether it rejects the claim, limits it, or extends it to a new case. Check the reason, because discussing the same behavior doesn’t mean explaining the same finding.
Hints
- Hint 1
Return to Moreno’s group comparison. Identify what the groups were told differently and what information they shared.
- Hint 2
In Text 2, look for why continuing might be reasonable. What do Hart and Ono assume, or not assume, about people’s preferences in their simulations?
- Hint 3
Apply Hart and Ono’s reason for continuing to each group in Moreno’s study. Ask whether it predicts a difference between the groups.
Step-by-step
Separate persistence from the group difference
Step 1Identify Moreno’s group difference
Moreno keeps the evidence the same: identical project histories and estimates of future success. What differs, and what must the other account address? People who believed they’d chosen the project continued more often than those told a computer had assigned it. Moreno links that gap between the groups to the improper influence of a prior personal choice.
- Step 2
Find Hart and Ono’s reason for continuing
Hart and Ono say someone may reasonably gather more information rather than switch after one poor result. Why could continuing make sense? Earlier evidence may be favorable, and pursuing the project may be the only way to get more information. Their simulations produced persistence without assuming any preference for personally selected options, so personal commitment isn’t the only possible reason to continue.
- Step 3
Test that reason against Moreno’s comparison
Does that reason predict Moreno’s group difference? Both groups had identical project histories and estimates of future success, so seeking more information could make sense for either group. A model with no preference for personally selected options gives no added reason for the self-selecting group to continue more. Explaining persistence isn’t the same as explaining the extra persistence tied to self-selection.
- Step 4
Match the strength of the relationship
The choices that say overturns Moreno's conclusion and strengthens Moreno's conclusion claim more about personal commitment than the simulations show, while no bearing ignores their other reason for persistence. Which wording avoids those leaps? The phrases does not necessarily and does not by itself explain limit what the account challenges and leave Moreno’s group difference unexplained. Choice A.