Evidence from the four-card task suggests that people are better at reasoning with concrete, real-world examples than with abstract, formal logic.

• A. People are unable to solve the four-card task under any circumstances.
• B. People are better at reasoning with concrete, real-world examples than with abstract, formal logic.
• C. People perform equally well on both abstract and concrete versions of the task.
• D. People always apply formal logic accurately, regardless of context.

Answer: (B)

Verified step by step guidance

1. Step 1: Understand the four-card task, which is a classic test in psychology used to study conditional reasoning and logical thinking. It typically involves cards showing a letter on one side and a number on the other, and participants must decide which cards to turn over to test a rule.
2. Step 2: Recognize that the task can be presented in two forms: an abstract version (using letters and numbers) and a concrete, real-world version (using familiar scenarios). The key research question is how well people perform in each version.
3. Step 3: Review empirical evidence from psychological studies showing that people tend to perform better on the four-card task when it is framed in concrete, real-world terms rather than abstract symbols. This suggests that context and familiarity improve reasoning.
4. Step 4: Note that the statement 'People are unable to solve the four-card task under any circumstances' is incorrect because performance varies depending on the task's presentation.
5. Step 5: Conclude that the correct understanding is that people are better at reasoning with concrete, real-world examples than with abstract, formal logic, which aligns with the evidence from the four-card task research.