Conventional political science suggests that participating in a protest does not change a person’s fundamental beliefs. Researchers Lee and Chen investigated this by comparing university students who were randomly assigned to a dorm near a protest site (and thus joined in) versus those assigned to dorms far away. They measured the students' political engagement two years later.
Which finding, if true, would most directly undermine the conventional political science view?
Students who participated in the protest held political views two years later that were highly correlated with their parents' views.
Two years later, students who had participated in the protest were significantly more likely to donate to political causes than those who had not participated.
Students who lived near the protest site but chose not to participate showed no change in their political engagement levels.
The students who participated in the protest were already majoring in political science at a higher rate than those who did not.
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. Conventional theory says action (protest) doesn't change belief. The finding that participants were "significantly more likely to donate" (a measure of engagement/belief) than non-participants suggests that the act of protesting did shape their future political behavior/attitude, undermining the conventional view.
Choice A suggests beliefs are inherited (parents), supporting the idea that the protest didn't change anything. Choice C discusses non-participants, which doesn't tell us about the effect of participation. Choice D suggests the students were already political before the protest, which supports the conventional view (that the protest didn't change them, they just attended because of who they were).