Question

The motivation of human beings towards their work is a complicated matter. For a long time, economists, sociologists, and psychologists believed that a carrot and stick approach, with monetary incentives, would be enough to motivate people towards higher levels of performance.
However, recent studies suggest that monetary incentives are only one part of motivation. In fact, studies show that high monetary incentives for tasks requiring higher cognitive abilities often lead to adverse outcomes. Experiments demonstrate that greater autonomy, reduced interference from management, and focusing on non-monetary factors are crucial for motivation in cognitive skill-intensive jobs.
Identify the statement(s) that is (are) logically consistent with the content of the paragraph:
i. The carrot-stick approach essentially requires the use of rewards to get more of a desired behaviour whereas penalties lead to increased undesirable behaviour.
ii. Expending time and effort on the design of monetary incentives is a wasteful exercise.
iii. The study by the group of MIT researchers was a flawed exercise from the start.
iv. There appears to be a need to reorient the existing paradigm prevalent in incentive design.
v. During the process of designing incentives, one should clearly delineate activities into those requiring mechanical skills and those requiring higher-level cognitive skills and design with separate sets of incentives and penalties for each.

• A. i and iv
• B. i and v
• C. ii and iii
• D. ii and iv
• E. iv and v

Hint:

In logical consistency questions, match statements to the central claim of the passage. Extreme or opposite views (like calling something wasteful or flawed) usually do not align unless explicitly stated in the passage.

Answer 1

Answer: (E)

Step 1: Core idea of the passage.
The passage highlights that: - Traditional carrot-and-stick (pure monetary incentives) is insufficient. - High monetary incentives can harm performance in cognitive tasks. - Motivation also depends on autonomy, lowered interference, and broader non-monetary factors. Thus, the conclusion is that incentive design must be rethought and tailored differently for mechanical vs. cognitive skills.

Step 2: Evaluate each statement.
- (i) Describes the carrot-stick approach. While true, it is only definitional and does not add new logical consistency with the passage’s main argument. Not the best choice. - (ii) “Wasteful exercise” is too extreme. The passage never says incentives are a complete waste, only that they must be redesigned for different tasks. Incorrect. - (iii) The passage supports the MIT study as valid, not flawed. Incorrect. - (iv) Reorienting incentive design is exactly the conclusion drawn in the passage. Correct. - (v) Differentiating between mechanical tasks and cognitive tasks when designing incentives aligns perfectly with the research findings. Correct.

Step 3: Final answer.
The logically consistent statements are (iv) and (v). \[ \boxed{\text{Answer: E (iv and v)}} \]