Self-study
Psychologist: People tend to make certain cognitive errors when they predict how a given event would affect their future happiness. ███ ██████ ██████ ███ ███████████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ █████████ █████ ████ ██ █ ██████ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ████████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ████ █████████ ██ █ ███████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ █████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ██████
Summarize Argument
The psychologist concludes that people shouldn’t try to eliminate the tendency to make cognitive errors when predicting how events will impact their future happiness. He supports this with an analogy, saying that people often mistakenly see parallel lines as converging, and, he claims, it wouldn't be reasonable to accept surgery to fix this visual error.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The psychologist supports his conclusion that a certain action would be unreasonable by presenting an analogous scenario in which another action would also be unreasonable. Just as trying to eliminate certain cognitive errors would be unreasonable, so would trying to eliminate certain visual errors, like mistakenly seeing parallel lines as converging.
17.
The psychologist's argument does which ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
attempts to refute █ █████ ████ █ ██████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ████████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██ ███████████ █████
The psychologist doesn’t refute a claim that a certain event is inevitable. Instead, he concludes that people shouldn’t try to do something. Also, he uses an analogy, not the possibility of an alternative event, to support his argument.
b
attempts to undermine █ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ █████
The psychologist doesn’t undermine a theory at all, nor does he question any assumptions. Instead, he uses an analogy to arrive at a prescriptive conclusion.
c
argues that an ██████ █████ ███ ██ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ████ █ █████████████ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████
The psychologist argues that eliminating certain cognitive errors might not be appropriate. He supports with an analogy, suggesting that a corresponding action— eliminating certain visual errors— is also not appropriate (or reasonable).
d
argues that two ██████████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ████ █████████
By using an analogy to support his conclusion, the psychologist does assume that two situations are similar. But he uses this analogy to conclude that two different actions— eliminating cognitive errors and eliminating visual errors— would be unreasonable in each situation.
e
attempts to establish █ ██████████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██████████████ ██ █████ ███████ █ ██████████ ██████
The psychologist does argue against a particular action, but he doesn’t do so by establishing a generalization. Instead, he uses an analogy to argue against a particular action.