0
NL888 Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
Does "they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment "mean...?
Does "they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment" mean "they had the right to quit the further/continued participation in the experiment"?
Context:
Zimbardo argued that the prisoners had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalization their roles, since, even though some had stated that they would accept "parole" even if it would mean forfeiting their pay, they did not quit when their parole applications were all denied.[7] Zimbardo argued they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost all monetary compensation, yet they did, because they had internalized the prisoner identity.
More:
Context:
Zimbardo argued that the prisoners had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalization their roles, since, even though some had stated that they would accept "parole" even if it would mean forfeiting their pay, they did not quit when their parole applications were all denied.[7] Zimbardo argued they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost all monetary compensation, yet they did, because they had internalized the prisoner identity.
More:
Top answer
No, I think it means that they were originally going to get paid, so they had that reason to do what they were doing. When they were no longer going to get paid they (logically) should have quit, since they had nothing to gain by staying, but they did not.
- No, I think it means that they were originally going to get paid, so they had that reason to do what they were doing.
- When they were no longer going to get paid they (logically) should have quit, since they had nothing to gain by staying, but they did not.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
No, I think it means that they were originally going to get paid, so they had that reason to do what they were doing. When they were no longer going to get paid they (logically) should have quit, since they had nothing to gain by staying, but they did not.
00
0
NL888Thanks.But what you explained is what I guessed in the first place.Sorry, I misunderstood you. The sentence implies that they had the right to quit, but does not specifically say so. It does say they had no reason not to quit.
0
Related Questions