It can be inferred that some scientists are not satisfied with the current research on laughter because:

• The studies are too long.

• They rely on opinions.

• The studies are too expensive to conduct.

• The studies focus only on children.

We can infer that subjective responses in research are:

• Easily measured in a lab.

• Based on personal opinions and feelings.

• The most reliable form of data.

• Always preferred in scientific studies.

What can we infer about the critics of the laughter studies?

• They want more expensive studies.

• They think opinions aren’t enough.

• They want to stop research.

• They are satisfied.

It can be inferred that laboratory research on laughter might help scientists:

• Prove laughter is bad.

• Understand physical effects.

• Teach laughter.

• Find the funniest jokes.

We can infer that there is a need for more research on laughter because:

• The benefits are well known.

• Physical effects are unclear.

• Laughter has no benefits.

• People don’t enjoy laughing.

What can we infer about laughing in a group versus laughing alone?

• Different effects on the body.

• Laughing alone is better.

• Group laughter has no effect.

• Group laughter is less enjoyable.

It can be inferred that people with a greater sense of humor might:

• Be more serious.

• Benefit more from laughing.

• Not benefit from laughing.

• Avoid laughing socially.

We can infer that the unanswered research questions are important because:

• They could help us understand laughter.

• They’re irrelevant.

• They’re already answered.

• Scientists know the answers.

What can we infer about the current understanding of laughter's health benefits?

• It’s complete.

• It’s mostly based on opinions.

• It shows laughter is harmful.

• It’s been studied in labs.

It can be inferred that, despite the need for more research, the text suggests:

• Avoid laughing until more is known.

• Laughing is likely beneficial.

• Only serious people benefit.

• Scientists know everything.