Self-study
Support Repressors—people who unconsciously inhibit their display of emotion—exhibit significant increases in heart rate when they encounter emotion-provoking situations. █████████████ ████ ███████ █████████████ █████████ ████ ████ █████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████████████ ██████ █ █████ ████ ██ █████ █████
Summary
The author concludes that both consciously and unconsciously inhibiting of displays of emotion causes a sharp rise in heart rate.
What makes the author think this?
Repressors (those who unconsciously inhibit displays of emotion) show sharp increases in heart rate in emotion-provoking situations.
Nonrepressors who consciously inhibit their display of emotion also experience sharp increases in heart rate in emotion-provoking situations.
Notable Assumptions
We have correlations between inhibiting emotions and a sharp increase in heart rate among the repressors and nonrepressors. The author assumes the reason for these correlations is that inhibiting emotions causes the heart rate increase.
But are there other explanations? Couldn’t the true cause of the heart rate increase by the emotion-provoking situation itself? The author is assuming that the emotion-provoking situation is not the true cause of the sharp increase in heart rate among both the repressors and nonrepressors.
22.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████
a
Encountering an emotion-provoking █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████████ █████ █████ ██ ████ ████████
Necessary, because if it were not true — if an emotion-provoking situation IS enough to cause nonrepressors’ heart rates to rise sharply — then the premise concerning nonrepressors no longer provides support to the conclusion. There would be an alternate explanation available for the nonrepressors situation, weakening the argument. So the author must assume (A).
b
Nonrepressors can inhibit ██████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ███
Whether each group repressed equally as well or one was better at inhibiting than the other is irrelevant, because we know that both repressors and nonrepressors inhibited emotion. Also, the argument doesn’t specify “facial and bodily” displays of emotion; there’s no reason to think the author must assume anything about specific displays.
c
Despite their outward █████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ██ █████████████ ██ ██ █████████████████ ██████████
Not necessary, because even if both groups are equally excited, that doesn’t undermine the author’s reasoning, which is based on the correlation observed between inhibiting emotions and a sharp heart rate increase.
d
People who are ██████████ ████ █████████ ███ ███████ ████ ███████ ██████ ████████ ████ █████████████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ███
We don’t know whether any of the nonrepressors were “ordinarily very emotional,” so there’s no reason to think the author must assume that very emotional people can refrain from feeling strong emotions. Also, the nonrepressors were asked to inhibit their display of emotion; that’s different from not feeling emotion.
e
In situations that ██ ███ ████ ██ ███████ █████████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██ ██████████████
Not necessary, because even if each group started with different average heart rate, we still know that each group experienced a sharp increase in heart rate. The argument isn’t based on a comparison of the repressors’ heart rate vs. the nonrepressors’ heart rate. It’s based on a comparison, within each group, of their heart rate before inhibiting and their heart rate after inhibiting.