Hi, Tryan,
Good question! This was a challenging passage. Let's try to use our observations and understanding of the passage to formulate a strong prediction for our main point. Here's the structure:
- First paragraph: Common sense position is articulated. Author notes that some experts are challenging this position. Reasoning behind this opposition described.
- Second paragraph: Implications and further explanation of these experts' position. Example included.
- Third paragraph: Potential danger or questionable implications of this position described. Experts' position does not make this mistake.
If we wished to describe the main point, we should start by asking what the overall topic of the passage is:
- The passage concerns a theory of mind proposed by some psychologists. This theory is contrary to common sense understanding but not without merit.
Now let's summarize the purpose of the passage:
- The author describes and expounds upon this theory and its implications without making a definitive commitment for or against it, but the overall tone tends to suggest at least an openness to its implications.
Now combine the description of the topic with the general purpose of the passage to form a prediction of the main point:
'
- This passage describes and explains a psychological theory about thought-processes that has fascinating implications in direct contrast to common-sense understanding.
Compare this prediction to the answer choices. Let's differentiate between (B) and (C).
- (B) is a solid match. We hit the tone pretty head on. It describes the contrast between the theory in question and the common-sense understanding. This answer doesn't over commit the author to a position for or against the theory. This answer keeps the focus on the theory, as we prephrased.
- (C) seems like a possible contender. We do talk about the disagreement with the common-sense belief that thoughts are directly perceived. However, note the choice of words here. In (C) it's "in response to the common belief." (B) has "in opposition to the common belief." Which is the better match? Are the psychologists reacting against the common belief (note the causal implications here), or is their theory simply in contrast to the common belief? The latter is a better match. Now notice the second phrase in (C). We're kinda on the right track here, but this phrase is in fact a misstatement of the psychologists' theory. The psychologists don't claim that this belief is an illusion resulting from an inability to make quick inferences. Rather,
it might be better described as an illusion resulting from the ability to make quick inferences. Further, this answer choice shifts the focus away from a description of what the theory actually is to a description of how the common-sense view is problematic, in the view of the psychologists. Thus, the gist of this answer choice is on the wrong subject.
I hope this helps!
