Q14 - Some philosophers explain visual perception

[smiller]

Question Type:
Match the Reasoning

Stimulus Breakdown:
Match the Reasoning questions are often based on conditional logic, but since we don't see clear conditional statements in the stimulus we're better off understanding it in general terms.

Opposing Point: Some people believe X.

Premise: The belief requires us to accept something absurd, which is that one thing depends on another, which depends on another, in an infinite chain.

Conclusion: The belief cannot be correct.

Answer Anticipation:
We should eliminate as many answers as possible based on clear mismatches using this basic understanding of the stimulus. If this leaves us with more than one answer, we'll need to look for less obvious differences.

Correct Answer:
(C)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) The conclusion does not match. The conclusion that Indo-European cannot be the earliest language seems to contradict the linguists' belief described in the first sentence, but it really doesn't. The linguists' aren't claiming that Indo-European was the earliest language, just that it was the source for some languages.

(B) The premise does not match. It seems close at first glance, but stating that an infinite number of theories cannot all be true is not the same as claiming that a theory requires an infinite chain of one thing depending on another depending on another.

(C) This is correct. Choice (C) presents a theory, then concludes that the theory is incorrect. The premise is based on an infinite chain of regression, just like the stimulus.

(D) None of the elements in this answer are ideal matches. The conclusion is questioning a definition, not a theory, and concludes that the definition is "unfortunate," which doesn't necessarily mean that it's incorrect. Furthermore, the support is essentially the opposite of what's given in the stimulus. Whereas the stimulus states it's absurd to suggest an infinite chain of dependencies, choice (D) claims that it's absurd to suggest that the foundation of a structure is not supported by anything else.

(E) Like (D) none of the elements in (E) are ideal matches. A claim stating that a library was the first of its kind isn't the same as a theory that explains how something works. Also, the premise of (E) isn't claiming that the implications of a theory are absurd, but instead uses a definition to argue against a claim about something being first.

Takeaway/Pattern: When the stimulus doesn't contain conditional logic you'll have to pay closer attention to the exact language, but you can still eliminate incorrect answers based on mismatches.

#officialexplanation

[ttunden]

Here is my analysis of this question


So, after reading the stimulus what I will be looking for in the answer choice is: an infinite process(something going on and on forever) and an author going against a hypothesis or statement.

A- No infinite process like there is in the conclusion. The evidence is different. Eliminate
B- Same as A. No infinite process like the stimulus. Just says all the theories cannot be true at the same time. The stimulus never did this. Eliminate.
C- This looks good. Conclusion is similar and it has an infinity process like the stimulus. Every theory has a precedent theory and precedent theory also has a precedent theory and so on. Looks good to me.
D- Conclusion different. Eliminate
E- No infinite process. This choice reasons by using different evidence. There is nothing going on and on like the stimulus or answer C. Eliminate.