#14 - In the 1960s paranoia was viewed by social scientists

[Ricky_Hutchens]

Hi Uhinberg,

Exactly. The stimulus supports choice A, but it doesn't have to be true. It is important to remember that "strongly support" and "must be true" are two different things.

[elewis10]

I had it narrowed down to A and D. Is D wrong because it isn't paranoia that is necessarily changes... it is society's, more specifically the world of social science, view of paranoia keeps changing?

i.e. paranoia may not be changing at all, but we know that social scientists position on paranoia continues to change because the ever-changing position is portrayed via film?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Exactly! It may not be that the the phenomenon has changed at all, but only our perception or understanding of it. This, by the way, is a common theme in many Flaw in the Reasoning questions, where an author provides evidence of a change in belief or understanding or reporting and then concludes that the thing itself has changed, failing to take into account that the change may be in the observer or reporting rather than in the thing being observed or reported. Be on the lookout for that pattern!

Nice work, keep it up, elewis10!

[periwinklelawstudent]

I think I don't understand the stimulus. Does "response to real threats from society" mean the same thing as " legitimate response to a world gone mad"? I don't understand why (A) is the right answer. I thought the part about the legitimate response to a world gone mad was an indicator that the film did not reflect trends in social science. I didn't see the response to real threats from society reflecting a similarity to a film with a legitimate response to a world gone mad.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi periwinklelawstudent,

In the 70s, it tells us that social scientists believed that paranoia was a response to "real threats." This would indicate that they felt the paranoia was a response to something actually threatening, and thus, the films portrayal of paranoia as a rational response to the world would reflect that social science position. Saying that the threat is real is the same as legitimate threat. Both are trying to say there was some reason that exists in the world as it was that justifies the paranoia.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[bruxellesjetaime]

I was confused by this question. Like others, I noticed that (A) was not an ironclad conclusion that one could draw after reading the passage. The passage provides some circumstantial support for (A), but noting two instances of correlation felt (to me) insufficient to draw a general conclusion about films portraying paranoia that accord with prevailing social science in a given period.

It could very well be that the correlation in the '60s and '70s were exceptions, and that the rule in other decades has been a disaccord between film portrayal and social science. Two instances (for me) was not enough to generalize from.

I feel like I am misinterpreting the question prompt. I was looking for something that is a natural conclusion to draw from the passage, not something that receives just some support from the passage. Can you help me to better gauge the level of support the passage is supposed to lend to the correct answer for this type of question prompt?

[Adam Tyson]

You are indeed misinterpreting the question stem, bruxellesjetaime, and it's an understandable mistake. Some "Must Be True" questions really do ask for something that must be true, but many of them only ask for the one answer that gets more support than any of the others. Some people call that a "Most Strongly Supported" question, others call it a "soft" Must Be True. That's what this question is.

No matter what you call it, the answer doesn't need to be ironclad or perfect. It just needs to have more support than any other answer, and while there is at least some support for answer A, there is none for any other answer choice. Thus, since the stem only asks for the answer (among the five choices given) that the facts "most strongly support," answer A has to be the correct response. Do the facts prove answer A? No, for the reasons you mentioned. Do they offer at least some support for A? Absolutely, and that makes it a winner!