Q12 - Critics have argued that because Freudianism

[ohthatpatrick]

This is a post from hakopis, moved here to the correct part of the forum.
====
I narrowed it down to A/D, but b/c of the stimulus, I felt (A) was a bit better as an answer. Specifically, b/c the stimulus starts:

Freud holds (X), it is (Y)/incompatible, but through psychoanalysis, Freud is not (X), therefore, he is not (Y).

So, is (A) the correct answer? -I can't find answer anywhere

[ohthatpatrick]

(A) is indeed the correct answer. Nice work!

Question Type: Logical Completion
(a variation on Inference)

We see we need to fill in the blank that comes after "Therefore", so we have to try to anticipate how the author would have concluded his argument.

Ideally, we recognize THIS common template of reasoning:

1. Critics have argued [ X ]
2. But [some factor that goes against critics]
3. Thus, the critics are wrong about X.

The critics argued that "Freudianism is incompatible with the predominantly rationalistic spirit of Western philosophical and psychological thought", so the author's conclusion would be saying: The critics are wrong; Freudianism IS compatible.

That's what correct answer (A) gives us.

(B) is too extreme. Freudianism says people can ALWAYS achieve happiness?

(C) goes beyond. Freudianism may be a NEW trend? The author is saying that Freudianism fits within the tradition, not that it creates a new one.

(D) The debate was never over whether Freudianism PROVIDES one with a rational life plan. It was over whether Freudianism ALLOWS ONE TO follow one's rational life plan.

(E) is too extreme. The author isn't trying to say Freudianism is something MORE THAN ANY OTHER theory.

[a8l367]

Argument:
Freudianism is incompatible with WPPT bacause its holds that there are uncincious desires.
But cental tenet of F is that it helps to avoid being defeted.
Therefore, F does not run counter to WPPT

How does this make the first reason of F being incompatible invalid no longer? Because of "central" tenet?