#7 - In an experiment, biologists repeatedly shone a bright light

[KG!]

Hi I was wondering if someone would be able to check my the gap for this question?

The conclusion is "therefore, the seal must have learned to associate the shining of the bright light with the shaking of the tank." The premises that support that state, "After several reps of 'shaking the tank sim' the snail tensed its foot whenever the bio shone the light into its tank, even when the tank was not sim shaken."

The problem I have with necessary assumptions is prephrasing/figuring out the gap. Honestly, the argument seems pretty okay, but in my head I thought that the author "assumes nothing else caused the foot to tense." I chose the correct answer choice D, but it seems a little off from my prephrase. I know paraphrasing a necessary assumption can be hard, but is my guess correct? Or was there a better way to look at the gap?

[Adam Tyson]

You prephrase - not a guess, but a plan you came up with to attack the answers - was absolutely perfect, KG! Don't downplay what you did there, because it wasn't a guess, but a well thought out approach to a bad causal argument. "Alternate cause" is one of the most common ways to weaken any causal claim. Well done!

The only problem you appear to be having is recognizing that answer D matches that prephrase perfectly. While your prephrase was broad - and that's a good thing, casting a wide net to catch any answer that fits into it - this answer was about a specific alternate cause that the author overlooked and must, therefore, have assumed was not the case. If the author has to assume that nothing else caused the snail to tense its foot, then they have to assume the light alone didn't cause it! When you know that the author is assuming no other cause, you can select an answer that identifies and eliminates any particular alternate cause.

Good work, KG! Keep that up, and believe in yourself. You aren't guessing - you're prephrasing like a boss!