Well, I would say that one can only answer the questions with the information that is presented. Then there really is a correct answer, because by definition A->B, so if A is given, then I know the answer is B. The only way a person would ever give a different answer is if they made outside assumptions. I'll talk about this in detail below in my pre-planned reply:
I've thought of some comments that are more constructive than my previous post. Instead of speculating what psychological disorder people who do well suffer from, why not explore why so-called "rational" people do poorly? I have some theories.
It has to do with persistent illusions, and I am borrowing these ideas from the behavioral economist, Dan Ariely. Consider these two tableshttp://dencemond.files.wordpress.com/20 ... usion2.jpg
Even though you can easily check that distance from end-to-end is the same for both, you can't help but continue to see one as being longer than the other. This is the result of a bias in your sensory input which interprets perspective. You can over-ride this bias with abstract logic, "I have measured the tables and know they are the same, and I choose to believe measurement over perception." But knowing the answer does not destroy the illusion. This is called a persistent illusion, and if you have a lapse in judgment you will once again assume the left table is longer. You cannot help it. It is a bias built into your system which is on average useful and correct, but which can also be wrong, as is the case with the two tables.
Ariely's great insight is to realize that these biases are not limited to your visual field of input, but extend to all regions of the mind. His work has shown how people consistently answer certain questions differently based on the context of the question, even when the underlying logic has not changed. The idea works this way:
Consider the following question.
The fact that you even think you can answer A or B is a remarkable testament to the power of the mind. It can fill in the empty spaces so that the above gibberish actually IS a sentence. The answer to the question is no, however, because the sentence actually reads, "Can Yon read this sentence?" where Yon is an illiterate sheep-herder from the Himalayas. You probably answered yes because you thought it asked, "Can YOU read this sentence?" Your mind filled in the blanks based on previous experience. You have seen these words so often you do not need every letter to understand it. If you forget that the name Yon, and someone asks you to read the sentence again, you will again answer "yes". This is an example of a consistent bias, or persistent illusion.
I wager that this study is another example of consistent bias. Even though it was never stated in the question that "if my grandmother is contagious I WON'T buy her flowers" by stating the inverse "if my grandmother is not contagious, I will buy her flowers" most socially aware people will fill-in-the-blank and assume the latter sentence implies the former. It is not true logically, but it can be inferred socially because if someone told you the latter sentence, you would *assume* that they meant it as a condition on whether they will buy there grandmother flowers if she is sick. Socially, it doesn't make sense to add a second sentence which does not qualify the first. So socially, the second sentence that you will also buy flowers if she is not contagious does not seem to follow from the first. This is why more sociable people will fill-in-the-blanks and assume the sentence means something different from what it says. It is a persistent social bias.
Therefore, I believe this study measures biases related to how socialized a person is. It tests if they are willing to fill-in-blanks and make inferences outside the construct of the problem. A logical person would never do this. A socialized person has biases which compel them otherwise. That somehow doing well on this test should correlate with autsim only proves that "autism" is a term invented by psychologists meant to malign the socially awkward. The term itself represents the biases of the psychological community, who value social interaction above all else (hence their career choice), who seek to reinforce social norms and punish people who don't adhere to them with stigmatizing labels. If you include an analysis on whether or not autistic people do well on this test then you will be complicit in this modern-day witch trial.