It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Hi,
I have trouble seeing why answer choice E here is wrong-- wouldn't the third sentence here be considered a "generalization", since a generalization is practically the same thing as a general principle, and the idea that "parallel lines often appear to converge" seems to be a general principle-- something that could be applied to multiple instances? In addition, if my aforementioned reasoning is correct, isn't this generalization being "used" to argue against people ridding themselves of tendencies by being used as context for the analogy that the stimulus brings up in the last sentence?
Any #help would be very much appreciated!
Best regards
Comments
Hey!
I think C is the correct answer due to the initial argument is the first 2 sentences. From there we can see that the psychologist is concluding that people should not get rid of the tendency to predict their future happiness. The third and fourth sentences I thought to be more of an example to help support his conclusion on why you should not get rid of "certain cognitive errors".
The psychologist using the strange example of a doctor being unreasonable to cover the cognitive errors to further prove his point is why I chose C. He/she initially argues their point that cognitive errors are good, then uses the example of a doctor removing your cognitive errors would be bad.
Therefore, the argument talks about an action that isn't appropriate, by using the parallel lines to show that, that example wouldn't be appropriate either. (C).
When it comes to the answer E, I don't see the use of the third sentence to be a generalization. I don't think the psychologist meant to use that to generalize an issue, I think they're using it more as a fact to start off their supporting statements to help justify their conclusion.
Hoped this helped in any way!
Yes this helped! Thank you @jordyngriffin!