#20 - Neural connections carrying signals

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello

So I think I'm seeing my error in these Justify questions, Im confusing them for assumption questions. So I want to check my reasoning on this one.

So the new element in the conclusion is "influence". So the formula would be:

neural connections carrying signals from the cortex down to the amygdala less developed than connections carrying signals from the amygdala up to the cortex + the degree of development of a set of neural connections is directly proportional to the influence transmitted across those connections= Thus, the amygdala exerts a greater influence on the cortex than vice versa.

But I had initially picked C, can someone explain why C is incorrect. E is saying that neural connects are directly proportional but the stimulus makes a point that going from and to are two different things. Wouldn't this be inversely proportional. Clearly I'm a bit rusty.

Thankyou
Sarah

[Adam Tyson]

Nicely done, Sarah! I think you hit the amygdala on the head here!

The problem with answer C is that it focuses exclusively on the cortex. )Now, I don't know anything about brain anatomy, but I am going to use some words here that have things to do with the brain, and I need you to forgive me if I totally mess them up.) C is saying that the region that has the most influence on the cortex is the one that has the most developed connections to it. So, if the cerebellum has a more developed connection to the cortex than the amygdala does, and the cerebrum has a more developed connection to the cortex than the cerebellum, and nothing has a more developed connection to the cortex than the cerebrum does, then the cerebrum must have the greatest influence on the cortex. But what does this do to help prove that the amygdala has more influence on the cortex than the cortex has on the amygdala? Maybe the amygdala is mostly influenced by poorly developed connections? Or by broken ones?

Because C focuses only on the cortex, and tells us nothing about the amygdala or about brains generally, it fails to prove the claim found in the conclusion. Your pattern was spot on, and it got you the right answer. Don't be fooled by the shell game in answer C, which presents ideas similar to what you are looking for but which fail to connect the dots the way you need them connected.

Oh, and regarding inverse vs directly proportional, an inverse proportion here would be if a more developed connection resulted in less influence and vice versa. Here, the author claims that the greater development of the connections going from amygdala to cortex mean those connections have greater influence than the less developed ones going the other way. That's a direct, not inverse, proportion. It's like saying the roads leaving Atlanta are narrower and in worse shape than those going into Atlanta, so the roads going in have faster moving traffic on them. Wider, good quality roads are directly proportional to traffic rates.

Nice work and good question! Keep up the good work.