Last visit was: 02 Oct 2026, 05:20 It is currently 02 Oct 2026, 05:20

Close

GRE Prep Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GRE score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 36246
Own Kudos [?]: 43499 [1]
Given Kudos: 27276
Send PM
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 36246
Own Kudos [?]: 43499 [1]
Given Kudos: 27276
Send PM
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 36246
Own Kudos [?]: 43499 [1]
Given Kudos: 27276
Send PM
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 36246
Own Kudos [?]: 43499 [1]
Given Kudos: 27276
Send PM
Re: While social learning of predator recognition is well documented [#permalink]
1
Expert Reply
Question 3 - Inference About the Study

Correct Answer: (A) It was designed to investigate a behavioral outcome rather than the learning mechanism that ultimately explained the result.

Explanation:
Osei and Lindqvist manipulated group size to test the conventional expectation that more demonstrators = more learning opportunities. They measured behavioral outcomes-how readily pups approached a demonstrator and how quickly they acquired the task.

The explanatory mechanism-that pups in large groups monitored peers for competition rather than attending to adults-emerged as an explanation of the result, not as the original focus of the study design. The passage says "The explanation appears to lie not in the quantity of demonstrators but in the quality of attention"-this is offered after the fact to make sense of the finding.

Why the others are wrong:

B - No multi-year tracking is mentioned; the study used weaned pups in captive clans.
C - Contradicts the finding: group density did matter, and in the opposite direction from what was expected.
D - The study used captive meerkat clans, not wild-like conditions.
E - Reverses the result: small-group pups learned more efficiently.
Prep Club for GRE Bot
Re: While social learning of predator recognition is well documented [#permalink]
Moderators:
GRE Forum Moderator
37 posts
GRE Instructor
275 posts
GRE Instructor
1151 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne