#10 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[bli2016]

Hello, for this question I chose E through process of elimination, but when going over the test, I still cannot find any direct evidence in the passage for this answer choice. The only words that I could possibly point to suggesting that lines 44-46 is not an "intellectually defensible position" is that the author says the psychologists come "perilously close" to committing themselves to that position (with emphasis on the "perilously"). Could someone help me out here? Thanks!!

[Jonathan Evans]

You've pretty much got it on this one. "Perilously close" implies "imminent danger." In other words, by adopting such a position, these psychologists would have put themselves in jeopardy of having to argue for an absurd position. I concur that the author need not necessarily agree that it is an "intellectually indefensible" position; however, the statement beginning in line 41 provides adequate evidence that answer choice (E) contains the statement that the author would be most likely to agree with among the options provided. Therefore, process of elimination is actually a sound strategy here!

[lanereuden]

What makes C wrong? Is it it that it was not the prevailing view ?

[ali124]

Why is (A) wrong? I was torn between (A) and (E) even after detecting that "perilously close" should help infer the correct answer. Lines 43-45 implies that it is dangerous "if we base our inferences about what we ourselves are thinking solely on observations of our own external behavior." Couldn't it be argued that if lines 44-45 were true, the scientific study of the thinking process is hindered and thus (A) is correct? What is it about lines 43-45 that lends more support for (E) than (A)?

Thank you so much!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Lane and Ali,

Lane, answer choice C is wrong here, because we only know that the viewpoint reported in lines 44-46 is the view of "some psychologists" (going back to line 13 of the passage), thus we don't know whether their viewpoint prevails (is dominant) in psychology more generally.

Ali, as is often the case with these "likely to believe" sorts of questions (asking you to draw an inference about the author's position from the passage), the more extreme the notion implied by the answer choice, the harder it is to prove it "follows from" what the passage states. You used the term "hindered" in your post, but answer choice A goes farther than that by saying that "it constitutes a denial of the possibility," which means lines 44-46 must support the notion that scientifically studying thinking processes is impossible. We can't be sure that the claim referenced in these lines necessarily entails such impossibility. That is a lot of weight for those lines to bear. It is easier to prove the notion that the "danger" implied by the phrase "perilously close" is the more simple (less extreme) notion of intellectual indefensibility (see Jonathan's explanation of why above).

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[ali124]

Thank you for the explanation!

[kcoxlaw]

Hello!

Why is "B" wrong?

The author appears to be saying the psychologists claims don't match their arguments.

Couldn't this discrepancy imply that the psychologists don't understand it?

Thanks!

[Beth Hayden]

Hi K,

I can definitely see why you find (B) to be an attractive answer, and it's a really tough passage to parse out!

The problem here is that the author isn't saying that the psychologists misunderstand the viewpoint, but that the viewpoint itself is wrong. The psychologists may understand the idea just fine, but that doesn't mean that this viewpoint is an accurate reflection of how we view our own thoughts.

Also, the phrase "misunderstood" seems to imply that the author agrees with the viewpoint and is arguing that critics don't understand it. Sure, I could use the word "misunderstood" in a positive, negative, or neutral way--the text could absolutely be interpreted the way you did! But we don't tend to call something we disagree with misunderstood.

I hope that helps!
Beth