OG2018V-CR-176求解~！

斯莫维特

In an experiment, volunteers walked individually through a dark, abandoned theater. Half of the volunteers had been told that the theater was haunted and the other half that it was under renovation. The first half reported significantly more unusual experiences than the second did. The researchers concluded that reports of encounters with ghosts and other supernatural entities generally result from prior expectations of such experiences.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the researchers' reasoning?


A.None of the volunteers in the second half believed that the unusual experiences they reported were supernatural.
B.All of the volunteers in the first half believed that the researchers' statement that the theater was haunted was a lie.
C.Before being told about the theater, the volunteers within each group varied considerably in their prior beliefs about supernatural experiences.
D.Each unusual experience reported by the volunteers had a cause that did not involve the supernatural.
E.The researchers did not believe that the theater was haunted.

个人感觉是果因推理的削弱：CQ2  因果可能没有联系。不信闹鬼，所以对such experiences没有prior expectation。
但是我又不能确切排除D...它的削弱没有明确指向prior expectation，那会不会是CQ1的他因呢？


求大神点化！

o_yeah

前提：The first half reported significantly more unusual experiences than the second did.前一半（被告知有鬼的人）报道了有更多不寻常事件发生。
⬇️
结论：Reports of encounters with ghosts and other supernatural entities generally result from prior expectations of such experiences. 看见鬼是因为心里有见鬼的预期。

逻辑线索是：被告知有鬼--->（志愿者信任有鬼 这点是gap，但题目中默许了。）--->报告更多的异常事件 --->结论
看B，B说：前一半被告知“有鬼”的志愿者，每个人都心里清楚：“有鬼”是骗人的。也就是说，第一组报告更多奇怪事件肯定是别的啥啥原因造成的，反正不是心里有见鬼的预期造成的，结论站不住脚了。

个人观点，有错请纠，谢！

GMAT一起加油！