Read the passage and answer the following questions.
A common pattern in group decision-making—widely known as groupthink—occurs when a team’s hunger for complete agreement becomes stronger than its willingness to examine other viewpoints with a critical lens. As a result, choices often turn defective because disagreement is either quietly silenced from within or discouraged through social consequences. Closely linked to this is social conformity, the tendency to adjust one’s opinions or actions to match the majority—often unconsciously—to gain acceptance or prevent friction. In closely bonded circles such as boardrooms, policy groups, or academic committees, individuals may hold back opposing ideas due to fear of exclusion or damage to reputation. With time, this shared uniformity creates mental stagnation, weakens creativity, and increases the chance of strategic misjudgments. The Bay of Pigs episode and the Challenger space shuttle tragedy are commonly highlighted as classic cases where groupthink distorted judgment. From a psychological angle, conformity is tied to our evolutionary pull toward tribal belonging, where standing apart once carried survival threats. Today, that same impulse shows up through peer pressure, workplace norms, and online echo chambers. Digital platforms intensify conformity because algorithms construct personalized “bubbles” that confirm existing beliefs while screening out conflicting perspectives. The antidote to this narrowed thinking is to build dissent into the system. When teams welcome principled disagreement, it becomes a mental safety-check against tunnel vision. Encouraging an environment where counterviews are valued—not punished—supports stronger, more balanced, and more resilient decisions. In a time shaped by viral fads, polarized debate, and performative agreement, the bravery to question the crowd is both uncommon and necessary. Real progress grows not from automatic loyalty to majority norms, but from critical probing and the nerve to challenge what feels comfortable.
What is the main point of groupthink as presented in the passage?
Correct Answer :
Prioritizing agreement over evaluation
Solution :
The correct option is Prioritizing agreement over evaluation.
Step-by-step Explanation:
1. Analyze the Passage:
The passage opens by introducing groupthink as a common pattern in group decision-making: "A common pattern in group decision-making—widely known as groupthink—occurs when a team’s hunger for complete agreement becomes stronger than its willingness to examine other viewpoints with a critical lens."
2. Evaluate the Core Concept:
According to the text, groupthink happens when the desire/hunger for complete consensus (agreement) overrides critical thinking and thorough evaluation of alternative perspectives (evaluation).
3. Match with Options:
- Generating ideas through teamwork: Incorrect; groupthink actually stifles creativity and alternative ideas.
- Prioritizing agreement over evaluation: Correct; this directly reflects the definition provided in the first sentence.
- Relying only on specialists: Incorrect; this is not mentioned as the main definition or point of groupthink.
- Distributing authority across units: Incorrect; organizational structure is not the focus of the definition given.
Therefore, the main point of groupthink as presented in the passage is prioritizing agreement over evaluation.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.