Verbal reasoning answer clarification (TPR - week 3, passage 14)

[Borborygmi]

Was hoping to get others' opinion about this question. This is the first time where I feel like the correct answer is wrong as opposed to less correct.

 

Question:

Suppose that a study shows that the most popular television and movie figures are fictional characters who heroically follow their own beliefs and principles, even when this causes conflict with others. What relevance would this study have to the author’s argument as it is presented in the passage?

 

Answers:

A.

It would be inconsistent with the author’s claim that only historical nonconformists are held in high esteem.

 

B.

It would be consistent with the author’s suggestion that a reason nonconformists are often criticized by their contemporaries is that one person’s nonconformity may impose costs on those with whom they refuse to conform.

 

C.

It would weaken the relevance of Schachter’s study to the author’s primary argument.

 

D.

It would strengthen the author’s claim that society’s evaluation of individual behavior may change over time, as evidenced by the idolization of historical nonconformists in films and literature.

 

Relevant passage information

When we look a little closer, we see an inconsistency in the way our society seems to feel about conformity (team playing) and nonconformity (deviance). For example, one of the best sellers of the 1950s was a book by John F. Kennedy called Profiles in Courage, wherein the author praised several politicians for their courage in resisting great pressure and refusing to conform. To put it another way, Kennedy was praising people who refused to be good team players, people who refused to vote or act as their parties or constituents expected them to. Although their actions earned Kennedy’s praise long after the deeds were done, the immediate reactions of their colleagues were generally far from positive. Nonconformists may be praised by historians or idolized in films or literature long after the fact of their nonconformity, but they are usually not held in high esteem, at the time, by those people to whose demands they refuse to conform.

 

I chose answer D. It feels clear to me that the evaluation of the person's actions changes. Nowhere does the passage directly discuss cost (Answer C, which TPR states as being correct). Someone feel like helping clarify?

[Savac]

Can you paste the rest of the passage please? I need to see what Schachter’s study was in particular.

 

Also, D looks like a trap answer to me. I have no idea if the author actually makes that argument in the passage though, but it mentions films/literature which makes it look relevant to the question stem. In reality, how does this new information strengthen an argument that individual behavior changes over time?

 

Anyway, paste in the rest and I can take a look at it... or at least somebody can give it a crack hopefully. I'm not the best at verbal though.

[Borborygmi]

Sure thing - here it is:

 

...Is conformity good or bad? In its simplest sense, this is an absurd question. But words do carry evaluative meaning—thus, to be called an individualist or a nonconformist is to be designated, by connotation, as a “good” person. The label evokes an image of Daniel Boone standing on a mountain top with a rifle slung over his shoulder, the breeze blowing through his hair, as the sun sets in the background. To be called a conformist is somehow to be designated as an “inadequate” person. It evokes an image of a row of Madison Avenue admen with gray flannel suits, porkpie hats, and attaché cases, looking as though they had been created by a cookie cutter, and all saying simultaneously, “Let’s run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes.”

 

But we can use synonymous words that convey very different images. For individualist or nonconformist, we can substitute deviate; for conformist, we can substitute team player. Somehow deviate does not evoke Daniel Boone on the mountain top, and team player does not evoke the cookie-cutter-produced Madison Avenue adman.

 

When we look a little closer, we see an inconsistency in the way our society seems to feel about conformity (team playing) and nonconformity (deviance). For example, one of the best sellers of the 1950s was a book by John F. Kennedy called Profiles in Courage, wherein the author praised several politicians for their courage in resisting great pressure and refusing to conform. To put it another way, Kennedy was praising people who refused to be good team players, people who refused to vote or act as their parties or constituents expected them to. Although their actions earned Kennedy’s praise long after the deeds were done, the immediate reactions of their colleagues were generally far from positive. Nonconformists may be praised by historians or idolized in films or literature long after the fact of their nonconformity, but they are usually not held in high esteem, at the time, by those people to whose demands they refuse to conform.

 

This observation receives strong support from a number of experiments in social psychology, most notably from one by Stanley Schachter, in which several groups of students participated. Each group met to read and discuss the case history of a juvenile delinquent named Johnny Rocco. After reading the case, each group was asked to discuss it and to suggest a treatment for Johnny on a scale that ranged from “very lenient treatment” on one end to “very hard treatment” on the other. A typical group consisted of approximately nine participants, six of whom were real subjects and three of whom were paid confederates of the experimenter. The confederates took turns playing one of three roles that they had carefully rehearsed in advance: the modal person, who took a position that conformed to the average position of the real subjects; the deviate, who took a position diametrically opposed to the general orientation of the group; and the slider, whose initial position was similar to the deviate’s but who, in the course of the discussion, gradually “slid” into a modal, conforming position. The results clearly showed that the person who was liked most was the modal person who conformed to the group norm; the deviate was liked least.

[Savac]

Ok, thanks. After reading this, I'm pretty confident in the answer that TPR gave.

 

The author appears to be arguing against the dichotomy laid out in the first paragraph. Conformity is introduced as being bad, while nonconformity is shown to be good. The author definitely disagrees with this (most clearly in paragraph 2/3). The study from Schachter is used to support the author's claim. It shows that people tend to like the conformist, or the "team player".

 

If we add in the new information from the question stem, it completely goes against the study, which is pretty much the only evidence that the author uses. So it would weaken the argument.

 

Further, I stand by what I said in my previous post. This passage isn't concerned with how society's opinions change over time at all. On that premise alone D can be quickly eliminated. The author never makes this claim.

[Borborygmi]

Thanks Savac . I just re-read the passage (for the third time). The thing that you seemed to realize quickly that I really missed was the author's tone in the second short paragraph. I think I also missed some pretty negative adjectives and other descriptive language in the last sentence in the first paragraph. On first read, I felt like the author was fairly neutral--describing both sides fairly equally. I guess I need to be careful about skimming too much. At the very least, I probably should have picked up on the language choice for "deviate".

 

Also, your point about the passage not being about society is important. The way that the author ties the argument together (using time) is a definite distraction from keeping that point in mind.

 

Your response was really helpful. Thanks!

[Savac]

No problem! I'm glad that I was able to help!