Question 69·Hard·Command of Evidence
In a recent experiment, college students read the same 4,000-word narrative either on a tablet computer or in a traditional printed booklet. On a quiz given immediately afterward, students who read the printed version answered significantly more factual and inferential questions correctly than students who read the digital version did. The researchers proposed that tactile and spatial cues—such as feeling page textures and sensing one’s location in a physical book—enhance memory encoding, thereby explaining the performance gap.
Which additional finding from the experiment, if true, would most directly weaken the researchers’ proposed explanation?
For “weaken the researchers’ explanation” questions, first pinpoint the exact cause-and-effect claim (here: tactile/spatial cues from print improve memory encoding, producing higher scores). Then look for a choice that most directly breaks that causal link—especially evidence that the effect (high scores) persists even when the proposed cause is reduced or removed, or that adding the proposed cause does not improve outcomes.
Hints
Restate the causal claim
Identify the proposed cause (what the researchers think creates the score gap) and the effect (what outcome they’re trying to explain).
What kind of evidence weakens a mechanism?
Look for a choice showing the score advantage remains even when the proposed cause is removed, or showing the proposed cause is present without improving scores.
Focus on tactile/spatial cues specifically
Which option most directly tests whether tactile/spatial feedback from a physical book is actually responsible for better quiz performance (rather than merely describing a difference between groups)?
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify the researchers’ claim
Restate what needs explaining and the proposed cause.
- Result: Students reading the printed booklet scored higher than students reading on the tablet.
- Proposed explanation: Tactile and spatial cues from a physical book (e.g., texture, physical sense of location in the text) enhance memory encoding, leading to higher quiz scores.
So the causal chain is: print-specific tactile/spatial cues better memory encoding higher scores.
Define what would weaken that explanation
To weaken a causal explanation, look for evidence that the proposed cause is not necessary or not responsible for the effect.
Strong weakeners often do one of the following:
- Show the effect happens even when the cause is removed.
- Show the cause is present but the effect does not occur.
- Point to an alternative factor that better explains the results.
Here, the best weakening evidence would show that the print advantage does not depend on tactile/spatial cues.
Evaluate the choices against the proposed mechanism
Ask of each choice: does it break the link between tactile/spatial cues and better quiz performance?
- A describes adding print-like cues to tablets and getting similar performance. That would tend to support the idea that tactile/spatial cues matter.
- B describes page-turning speed differences but doesn’t show that tactile/spatial cues are irrelevant to memory.
- C describes rereading behavior, which is interesting but doesn’t directly show tactile/spatial cues are not the driver.
- D removes tactile sensation for print readers and checks whether performance changes. That directly tests whether tactile cues are necessary.
Choose the finding that most directly weakens the explanation
Students who read the printed narrative while wearing thick cotton gloves that largely eliminated tactile sensations scored just as well as students who read the printed narrative without gloves.
If print readers score just as well even when tactile feedback is largely eliminated, then tactile cues are not necessary for the print advantage. That directly weakens the researchers’ tactile-and-spatial-cues explanation (at minimum by undermining the tactile component of the proposed mechanism).