#21 - Experimental psychology requires the application of

[Adam Tyson]

My first step would be to adopt Claire's reasoning in this thread. The flaw is assuming that because something is necessary, more of it is even better.

Answer E misses the mark on several points. First, it has a premise about most, which are stimulus did not. That's not enough to kill that answer, but it gets worse from there. Answer E doesn't tell us anything is necessary, only that something might help. Finally, answer choice E doesn't conclude anything about more being better, but instead concludes that if you have one helpful thing, you don't need anything else. Nothing about this answer matches our stimulus!

Look for the answer that says one thing is necessary, and which concludes that more of that necessary thing is even better.

[sjlsat]

Hello, I picked answer choice E on this one but understand why it doesn’t really match up with the stimulus, as Adam pointed out.

I just want to make sure I have this down correctly. If answer choice E read like the below, would this have been correct?

“Mastering medicine requires understanding disease processes that are biochemical in nature. A person will not be able to understand disease processes that are biochemical in nature without an understanding of chemistry. Therefore, the more understanding one has in chemistry, the better one will be at mastering medicine.”

Thanks again!

[Robert Carroll]

sjlsat,

That looks like it makes the appropriate changes to answer choice (E) to make it match the stimulus. Well done!

Robert Carroll

[sjlsat]

sjlsat,

That looks like it makes the appropriate changes to answer choice (E) to make it match the stimulus. Well done!

Robert Carroll

Thank you, Robert!

[injoo626]

Hello! Could someone explain why C can't be the answer?

I thought C could be written as

1. Heart attack --(most)--> arteriosclerosis
Since arteriosclerosis is the main cause of heart attack, I thought most of the heart attack cases NEED the condition of arteriosclerosis as it's the main cause. (For A to be a cause of B, A MUST be present in cases of B)

2. arteriosclerosis ---> time
The passage says arterio. develops over time which means it NEEDs time to develop.

Final conditional statements would look like
Heart attack --(most)--> arterio. --> time

C further states that the longer time-- the MORE of the necessary condition-- the higher risk of heart attack-- the MORE of the sufficient condition.
I chose C as the answer because I thought it resembles the faulty reasoning shown in the passage.

Please correct my mistakes! Thank you in advance

[Luke Haqq]

Hi injoo626!

In short, (C) can't be correct because it looks valid. Answer choice (C) is effectively saying that the main cause of heart attacks is a buildup of plaque (arteriosclerosis), this plaque builds up more over time, so one is at a greater risk of a heart attack as more time progresses. There certainly seem to be some missing pieces--what if, for example, one took steps to reduce plaque buildup? Though there may be some pieces missing, the answer choice doesn't look clearly invalid on its face.

That should be sufficient reason for eliminating (C) because the reasoning in the stimulus is flawed, and the question stem asks for an argument that is similarly flawed. The problem in the stimulus is going from a binary claim ("A person will not be able to understand such applications without training in statistics"--either one can understand or not) to a claim that is a matter of degree ("Therefore, the more training one has in statistics, the better one will be at research in experimental psychology").

Answer choice (A) similarly moves from a binary claim ("without [love and support, most people] become depressed and unhappy"--either one becomes these things or not) to a claim that is a matter of degree ("the more love and support a person receives, the happier that person will be"). This parallels the flaw in the stimulus.

[joliekwok8@gmail.com]

Hi,

Just wanted to confirm my thinking for A.

At first, I thought i was hesitant because A talked about "Most" but the stimulus didn't mention a quantity. But because both the stimulus and answer A talk about requiring/needing the application of stats/love and support and the consequences with not having it, the opposite would give the effect of being better at research/happier, is this why we can still keep A as a contender?

The only thing is when I read E, I thought maybe another flaw could be that training was not the only factor in bettering research in experimental psychology, which E addresses since it says that "one needs little more than training in chemistry to be able to master medicine". Or is it also wrong because the stimulus only talks about being better at research and E is too extreme, discussing full mastery of medicine?

Thanks!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi joliekwok8!

You ask about (E),

Or is it also wrong because the stimulus only talks about being better at research and E is too extreme, discussing full mastery of medicine?

Yes, the full mastery of medicine seems problematic. Answer choice (E) seems flawed, but not in the same way that the stimulus is flawed. The answer choice might therefore be a contender just because it is also flawed, but it ultimately should be rejected.

Regarding (A), as I note above,

Answer choice (A) similarly moves from a binary claim ("without [love and support, most people] become depressed and unhappy"--either one becomes these things or not) to a claim that is a matter of degree ("the more love and support a person receives, the happier that person will be"). This parallels the flaw in the stimulus.