#11 - A severe blow to the head can cause one to lose

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)

This stimulus argues that consciousness is not necessarily a product of the brain, so more evidence is needed to conclude that consciousness does not survive bodily death. The argument criticizes people who conclude that since damaging the head will cause a loss of consciousness, consciousness is a product of the brain and cannot survive bodily death. The critique is accomplished through the analogy that demonstrates that radio programs exist whether or not a specific radio becomes too damaged to pick up the signal.

Answer choice (A) The argument does not assert that consciousness survives bodily death, only that more evidence is needed.

Answer choice (B) The argument makes no assertions about which beliefs are widely accepted, so this choice is wrong. Also, the best answer phrasing would discuss an analogy, not an example.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The radio is cited as an analogy, and some people do draw a different conclusion about the radio than about consciousness.

Answer choice (D) The argument's conclusion is that more evidence is needed, not that radios are analogous to consciousness.

Answer choice (E) Since the stimulus never discusses energy versus matter, this choice is incorrect.

[cmouell]

I had a difficult time between choosing answer choice C and D for this one. I ended up selecting D when the answer was C. I am guessing that D is wrong because it states that the conclusion is that "the relationship of the consciousness to the brain is analogous to that of a radio program to the radio that receives it." When in the actual question stem, the author doesn't take such a definitive stance on whether the consciousness of the brain lives on; they just state that more "substantial evidence would be needed." Is this more or less why D is wrong? If not, what makes C the superior answer choice? Thanks.

Very Respectfully, Chris O.

[Jon Denning]

Hey Chris - thanks for the question. I think D probably has a few issues that would make me wary of it. For one, to say "it is cited as THE primary piece of evidence" [emphasis mine] seems too strong for what is actually occurring: the author is simply giving an analogy where we don't draw the type of conclusion about the radio signal and a damaged radio that we draw about consciousness and a damaged brain. To call it the singular/primary piece of evidence to prove a conclusion isn't really accurate. C's "A case analogous to..." is much softer, and therefore a better description of this particular author's point.

Further, the specific relationships aren't said to be analogous; rather, the conclusions people draw about the two relationships are what the author is focused on. Definitive conclusions about consciousness vs uncertainty about the radio signal. That's much better represented by C.

Make sense?

[emilyjmyer]

Hi!

In doing this question I was stuck between choices B and C. my main issue here was that I was having trouble distinguishing this from a counterexample and analogy. In my class we said that analogies tend to be general and counterexamples tend to be more specific. I thought that talking about a specific object (the radio) was enough to make it an example. Also, the explanation for why B is wrong says that we do not know if it is a "widely held" belief. I thought that the stimulus saying "some people infer" was enough to make it widely held because we know that some can be logically equal to all. I would think that if some or all people agree with something then it is widely accepted.

Thanks!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Emily,

Good question! Let's start with a comparison of a counterexample and an analogy in this context. A counterexample would be a specific instance that showed that consciousness is not part of the brain. It would look similar to this:

Some people believe consciousness is a product of the brain. But Zombie Tommy's physical brain was removed, and he still showed signs of consciousness.

The counterexample of Zombie Tommy is a specific instance that shows the general principle isn't universal. It's against the general principle or theory that consciousness is part of the brain, and it's a specific instance.

Let's turn to your question of some/all. Knowing that "some" people believe consciousness is part of the brain is very different than saying it's widely held. You can't jump from some to all. "Some" just means there's some person out there that holds the belief. You can't say it's widely held because it could just be one. It could be all, but it doesn't have to be any more than one person. So when we think about what we can say for certain about the world, we can only say for sure that at least one person holds the belief. We can't say for sure that it's a widely held belief.

Hope that helps!

[emilyjmyer]

Hi Rachel,

This was very helpful! I just want to make sure that I understand though.

So I kind of see why the radio is not a counterexample because it is still something general. But, how do we know when to draw the line between specific and general?

As for the logical opposites concept, some can be anything from >0 to <all, therefore, we cannot say that some is widely accepted or all because we do not know for certain where that values falls in the spectrum. I also see that answer choice C matches the language of "some" that is in the stimulus, so that should be a give away that that answer could be correct. Just on the topic of logical opposites, what could be considered widely accepted? All? Everything? Or no because does widely imply that there are at least some people that do not accept the idea?

Thanks again for your help!

[Adam Tyson]

Examples are specific instances of exactly the thing being discussed, emilyjmyer. That's why Rachel gave the Zombie Tommy hypothetical - it was a specific case about consciousness not being in the brain, which is exactly what the argument is talking about.

An analogy is a comparison to something different than what is being discussed, but which the author believes is sufficiently similar to be useful in supporting their argument. It's not a question of specific vs. general, but of whether it is the same thing that the argument is talking about or whether it is a similar but different thing.

But analogies ARE general. This one did not name a specific radio program or identify a particular case of a broken radio, but just gave us the general idea of what happens when radios break. When we talk about a specific instance, we mean that it identifies a particular case, like the case of Zombie Tommy.