This is an OG-12 question. ( CR # 94)

Evidence : Studies in restaurants show that the tips left by customers who pay their bill in cash tend to be larger when the bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo.

Hypothesis : simply seeing a credit-card logo makes many credit-card holders willing to spend more because it reminds them that their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available.

We have to find a relationship that will show that the hyothesis lead to the evidence. How ?
"simply seeing the credit card logo" - will make the credit card holder to increase their spending power.
Seeing the credit card logo - cause
credit-card holders willing to spend more because............., it is having an influence on the mind of the card holder - effect with the reason(why ? ).
One way to strengthen this hypothesis is by showing that same cause will have a similar effect.

Now lets move on to the answer choice :
A - Since the hypotheses is only related to the influence of seeing credit card, its a weakening statement.
B - We have to find a link that seeing the credit card logo have an influence on the card holder. This is exactly what it states.
Since you are already clear about C,D and E - I am not discussing that.

Hope it helps.

answer choice B holds the same cause, but doesn't it show a different effect?

ellochewy wrote:answer choice B holds the same cause, but doesn't it show a different effect?

Hi ellochewy, I see your confusion now.

Cause = Own a credit card
Effect = Pay higher tips as purchasing power increases,( the result is the influence of seeing the logo )

Point B emphasis the same Cause Effect relation of this influence.

avik.ch wrote: Hi ellochewy, I see your confusion now.

Cause = Own a credit card
Effect = Pay higher tips as purchasing power increases,( the result is the influence of seeing the logo )

Point B emphasis the same Cause Effect relation of this influence.

Hi avik.ch,

Liked your explanation. Can you please elaborate more on this ? and why choice E cannot be the answer ?

E.The percentage of restaurant bills paid with given brand of credit card increases when that credit card's logo is displayed on the tray with which the bill is prepared.

Thanks & Regards
Vinni

vinni.k wrote:
Hi avik.ch,

Liked your explanation. Can you please elaborate more on this ? and why choice E cannot be the answer ?

E.The percentage of restaurant bills paid with given brand of credit card increases when that credit card's logo is displayed on the tray with which the bill is prepared.

Thanks & Regards
Vinni

Hypothesis : simply seeing a credit-card logo makes many credit-card holders willing to spend more because it reminds them that their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available.

The hypothesis is not dealing with a particular brand of credit card - its about seeing a credit card and not about seeing a particular brand of credit card. Consider this :

smoking ( cause ) ---------> kills ( effect )

How can we strengthen this :

1. no other cause is responsible for the stated effect.
2. if the cause is not there then the effect is also not there.
3. the reversal of the cause and effect is not possible.
4. showing that the cause and effect rule is valid on some another set of condition- this is applicable here

But if I say :

Smoking marlboro ----- > kills ( this is not the same as the first cause and effect )

Hope this helps !!

Thanks avik.ch. Got your point and appreciate your reply.

Regards
Vinni

This is one of those questions where I feel it helps to pay attention to the extra info in the question stem -- we're asked to strengthen the psychologists' interpretation, which is that there's a link between the sight of a logo and how much a person pays. It's unsettling for the answer to go in the opposite direction, but it still strengthens the link.

Jim@Grockit wrote: It's unsettling for the answer to go in the opposite direction, but it still strengthens the link.

I didn't get this. Can you please throw some more light on this.

avik.ch wrote:

Jim@Grockit wrote: It's unsettling for the answer to go in the opposite direction, but it still strengthens the link.

I didn't get this. Can you please throw some more light on this.

In simpler terms, if the question said "Researchers have analyzed real estate data and have concluded that people like to live near bodies of water" and then asked you to strengthen that, the answer choice that says "researchers found that the greater the distance from water, the fewer people lived there, and the more those people reported unhappiness" strengthens their findings, even though it talks about distance from water and unhappy people rather than proximity to water and happy people.

Interesting analogy ... thanks. I was a bit confused with the explanation in OG. Much clear now. I took this question as representativeness question, i.e assumption being that the study is representative. But could not find any option that strengthens that the study is representative.

Looks like Option B goes the opposite way which in fact tells if patrons did not have obligations, patrons would put more tip.