Q23

[adamB949]

I was stuck between answer choices (A) and (E). I ended up choosing (A) because I felt like the last paragraph did more to attack the premise stated in the first paragraph. Can someone explain why (E) was a better answer?

[ohthatpatrick]

Often, the topic sentence of a paragraph is the best way to get ourselves ready for a question about the paragraph's FUNCTION.

We'd also think about our overall passage map.

I would have prephrased that the last paragraph
"presents the author's qualms about the subtractive method, saying that it gives undue support to the modular theory of mind"

(A) "incompatible" is way too strong for anything the author is saying

(B) this wasn't about modifying the 1st paragraph's position

(C) "outdated"?

(D) the last paragraph isn't saying, "See how right the 3rd paragraph is?" If anything, it's doing the opposite

(E) Looks good. This is a veiled way of saying, "I have some issues with the subtractive method, and I think that it makes the modular theory of mind look more enticing than it should."

[MayaM405]

Can you elaborate on why answer choice B can be eliminated? I considered the first paragraph's position to be the modular theory of the mind itself, and the purpose discussing the subtractive method and its false impressions in the final paragraph is to point out the flaws with the theory. Is it too much of a stretch to say that that is suggesting it be modified? Or did I misread the position of the first paragraph?

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

If we say the position in the 1st in the modular theory of the mind, are there "results" in the 3rd paragraph that seem to undermine the modular theory (that seem to necessitate adjusting the modular theory in order to accommodate those results)?

The 4th paragraph says that the "results" of fMRI scans (3rd paragraph) illustrates the modular theory of the mind so well.

So I'm not sure how the modular theory of the mind would need to be modified in order to accommodate results that wonderfully illustrate the modular theory of the mind.

I think you're reading (B) as, "People holding the position that the modular theory of the mind is an accurate depiction of brain activity need to modify their position (as in "not be as confident in its accuracy") to accommodate the fact that fMRI scans are designed in a way that will automatically show neat modular functionality to the mind."

That does seem like too much stretching. Mostly, the author's objections in the 4th paragraph are what would make a modular theorist modify her enthusiasm. It's not empirical RESULTS that would make a modular theorist modify. It's the DESIGN of the scan itself.

The notion of a theory needing to be modified in order to accommodate results is something like, "Newton's equations describe most orbits perfectly, but the results of measuring Mercury's orbit did not fit Newton's equations. Thus, Newton's theory of gravity needs to be modified in order to accommodate the retrograde orbit of Mercury."

Hope this helps.

[EmilyL849]

Hello,

I got to (E) by process of elimination, but at first I crossed out (E).

I agree with the first part, (pointing out that the results of fMRI does not prove the validity of the subtractive method) however, I do not like the second part (how it does not defeat the argument presented in the second paragraph).

The second paragraph basically says the mind functions generally throughout the entire brain. The author says the flawed method of reasoning of the subtractive method, which only shows the difference from a baseline of normal brain activity, obscures that the entire brain is at work in both conditions.
But does the author say that to argue that fMRI results do not go against comprehensive brain functioning? In other words, is the purpose of the final paragraph “to show fMRI result does not hurt the argument in 2nd paragraph?” Isn’t the final paragraph just about pointing out the questionable method of reasoning and further question the premise upon which it builds? I

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 1st part / 2nd part.

I agree with the first part, (pointing out that the results of fMRI does not prove the validity of the subtractive method) however, I do not like the second part (how it does not defeat the argument presented in the second paragraph).

Saying "I'm not convinced of the modular theory" is similar to "I think that mental functions are a blend of brain activity, not localized in certain areas". The 2nd paragraph was essentially saying, "Here is some skepticism of the modular theory". The topic sentence of that 2nd paragraph says "it may not be that the mind is modular".

So something that undermines the validity of the modular theory would automatically also be something that bolsters skepticism of the modular theory. (i.e. something that goes against the 1st paragraph would automatically be in support of the 2nd paragraph)

The 3rd paragraph shows the evidence FOR the modular theory. This evidence would be attempting to say, "You're wrong 2nd paragraph. The mind IS modular. Check out these fMRI's. See those discrete regions that are lit up? Looks like modules to me!"

The final paragraph is the author saying, "You can't shoot down the anti-modular point of view by saying, 'look at these scans, which show clearly defined modules'. After all, the fMRI is designed to obscure the fact that the entire brain is operating, not just those modules."

I think you're reacting to the fact that the wording in (E) is unexpected and not how we would have prephrased a correct answer, but the wording is still accurate in what it says, so it survives to be the best available answer.

Hope this helps.

[EmilyL849]

Hi, Patrick!

Thank you for the reply.

I guess what I was saying is in the final paragraph is author saying that "your fMRI scans do not hurt my anti-modular argument".
I would prephrase the purpose more along the line of 'to show fMRI results do not support the modular theory'. Author is saying that "your fMRI scans, with flawed methodological rationales, do not prove your modular theory."
However, as you pointed out, the two are basically the same thing.

Thank you!