A finding question about an experiment tests whether a result would support a proposed explanation. Put the proposal in a few words by naming the cause, the effect, and the people being tested. Then check what the researchers measured and what stays the same between groups. Compare the same groups using that measure, using the direction the proposal predicts. A finding can share the study’s topic without showing what the proposal needs.
Hints
- Hint 1
Return to Desai and her team’s proposal. Put it in a few words, naming what they think causes a change and what should change.
- Hint 2
The researchers recorded how many puzzles each participant solved. Use the study’s measure of problem solving when you test a finding.
- Hint 3
Add up each group’s working minutes, leaving out the break. Use the puzzle counts to test the proposal once you’ve checked the time each group had.
Step-by-step
Compare the measured result
Step 1Put the proposal in a few words
Desai and her team propose that brief, timed “microbreaks” might actually improve problem solving by preventing mental fatigue, so we need evidence for that benefit rather than for the common belief that breaks hurt performance. What are the cause and effect? The proposed cause is a microbreak, and the effect is better problem solving among the adults doing logic puzzles. Our prediction is a gain in problem solving with the break.
- Step 2
Check the time each group worked
The study recorded how many puzzles each participant solved, so how can we compare the groups fairly? One group worked continuously for 30 minutes, while the other worked for 15 minutes before its break and another 15 afterward. That gives both groups 30 minutes of working time, even though the second group’s full session lasted 35 minutes. We can judge the break’s benefit without confusing a longer session with more time spent solving puzzles.
- Step 3
Test the findings against the predicted gain
Which finding shows that the break can improve problem solving? Fewer puzzles runs against the proposal, about the same number shows no gain, and at least one puzzle never tells us which group did better. The finding that the microbreak group solved more puzzles shows better problem solving with the break. Its same total work time means extra working minutes can’t explain the gain. Choice B.