#11 - Some psychologists claim that, in theory, the best

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Thanks for your message--that's a good question, and an interesting point.

Some psychologists say that the best way to understand someone else would be through deep empathy. Even if that is unattainable, does that mean that it wouldn't be the best way? The author goes so far as to specify that they say this would be the best way "in theory."

Similarly, the best way to get across town, in theory, may be to drive, even though I might not have a car and thus might end up walking...

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[allisonellen7]

Luckily I needed help with the question that was originally explained, so the answer wasn't in vain! Thanks belatedly!

[akanshalsat]

Hey! After first getting this wrong, I got it right after rereading the stimulus and really understanding what was going on.

I get why C is correct BUT the argument concludes that the psychologist is wrong in THAT it's not the BEST way, i'm not sure where it can be read that the argument/ or the author making the argument assumes/or has a flawed belief that the psychologists are saying that its the "ONLY" way to understand. It seems like he's just saying that they are wrong about it being the best way, so where is he confused?

thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The author concludes that the theory is wrong about what would be best, based on evidence that we can achieve understanding even though the theoretical approach is not actually possible. The theory won't actually work in reality, but we still do get understanding, so the theory is wrong about what is best. That's what answer C is saying, akanshalsat. Apparently there IS another way to gain understanding, because we do in fact get it even though the theoretical approach isn't possible. So, the author concludes that since there is ANOTHER way, the theoretical approach cannot by the BEST way. But maybe the theoretical approach still would be best, if only it was actually possible to accomplish?

[Anastasya1]

To make it simple, she concludes that the psychologis are wrong in stating that, in theory, the way to understand another person would be through deep empathy SINCE we can already understand other people.

So what if we can already understand one another. The psychologists never said the only way of achieving it is through deep empathy. Had they said that, her argument would be valid since the middle stuff disproves that it’s not true that this is achieved through deep empathy since we already understand another and we’re not capable of completely grasping the other person’s motivations. The psychologists are claiming that in theory it’s be the best way. It doesn’t have to be the best way in practicality. And being able to already understand someone doesn’t mean there aren’t other ways to understand someone. It especially doesn’t disprove that it’s not achievable through deep empathy.

Real life example: in theory, researches claim the best way to purchase a nice expensive car is by waiting to buy it outright in cash. But suppose they are right, there would be no way to purchase the car since it’s economically impossible to obtain all that cash at once (say it’s true for arguments sake). But obviously such cars have been purchased. Owners are making making monthly payments. So clearly this proves waiting to buy the high end car in cash is NOT the best way to make the purchase.

To make this flaw go away we would have to assume that if something is the best way, then it’d be the only way.

See how C is the answer?

[James Finch]

Hi Anastasya,

Exactly! Always watch for the scope of the language whenever a claim is made: is it the "best" way, or the "only" way?

Great job!