Q27

[laurenvarg]

This is asking us to find an analogous example to the way fMRI scans are interpreted.

What we know about fMRI scans:
They use the subtraction method. So although most of the brain is showing metabolic activity, we only see the difference in that activity. The interpretation is that an emotion happens, and one part of the brain is more strongly correlated, so it is interpreted as the sole contributor.

Correct answer: (B)
Something happened to the whole year (advertising campaigns). There is an increase in shoppers during one part of the year, so it affected only summer shoppers. We look only at the increase in the shoppers, and decide that this is the only correlated piece.


A. We have the margin piece (one city voted by a large margin) but the end "could not have won without it," this implies that other parts are also contributing to the win (the fMRI says the opposite about the rest of the brain). Eliminate

C. This is comparing how much something is impacted, and shows that multiple parts are being impacted. This is the opposite of how we view the findings from fMRI (it suggests only one is impacted/responsible).

D. This doesn't even sound right. Talking about when traffic is highest, and connecting to where they are. We need one thing being called the cause, when there are multiple factors.

E. Cheetahs running fast for short distances. This isn't even close.

[ohthatpatrick]

Very nice! Let us know if anyone else has any questions.

I think it would be down to (A) and (B) for me, and I would compare their conclusions.

(A) makes it sound like we interpret fMRI scans as "we wouldn't be able to have this thought process without that specific brain region."

(B) makes it sound like, "Only this region of the brain is affecting this thought process"

[laurenvarg]

D and E seemed very off to me, but I could not articulate why. I was very hung up between A B and C, but for the same reasons you mentioned felt B was closest.

Any help with articulating what's wrong with D and E?

[ohthatpatrick]

Sure, the abstract model I had in mind for "the manner in which fMRI scans are interpreted" was something like this:

one part is comparatively increased from the rest of the whole,
so THAT part is the real causal factor.

(D) makes a language shift from "evening hours" to "homes, rather than office buildings". So it's kind of impossible to even match up with what was happening in the passage.

(E)'s premise doesn't sound anything like "one part is comparatively increased from the rest of the whole", no it's a bit of a non-starter.

When we look at (B), its conclusion isn't introducing anything new, other than a specific causal claim about the stuff we previously talked about.

(D) and (E) don't even have causal conclusions.