No one knows what purposes, if any, dreams serve, although there are a number of hypotheses. █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ████████████ ██████████████ █████████████ ██████████ ████████████ ███████ ███████ █████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ███ ███ █████ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █ ████ █████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ████████████ ███ ███ ████████████████████ ███████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ██████ ████ ██████ █████ ████ █████ ██████ █████ ███ ███ █████████ ████████████
Here’s a casual summary of the argument:
Phenomenon: We dream.
Hypothesis: We dream as a side effect of unclogging our memories.
Prediction: If this is true, we would expect animals that don’t dream to need extra memory space for all their clogged-up memories.
Evidence: The spiny anteater doesn’t dream (or at least, doesn’t do REM-sleep), and has a ridiculously large brain.
—
Conclusion: Maybe this hypothesis is onto something.
The reasoning in the argument ████ ███████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
Facts about one ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ████████████ ███ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██ █████████
“Similar” is the real killer here. The thing about the spiny anteater is that it’s different from all other species in one relevant respect.
A hypothesis from █████ ███████ ███████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ███████████ ████ ███ ██ ██ █████
(B) dies when it mentions drawing several predictions as logical conclusions from a hypothesis. Several predictions? I count one.
A hypothesis about ███ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ██ █████ ████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████
(C) says a jumble of words that take some effort to map onto the stimulus. Realistically you should move on from it at first rather than parsing it all out, then never return because you like (D) and pick it.
When you do map it all out, though, it adds up to a claim that simply doesn’t reflect the stimulus. Look:
A hypothesis about the purpose of an action or object (dreams erase parasitic connections) is confirmed when it is shown that the hypothesized purpose (erasing parasitic connections) is achieved (we erased them!) with the help of the action or object (dreams helped us erase them!) and could not be achieved without that action or object (we couldn’t have done it without you, dreams!).
The stimulus never shows that dreams do erase parasitic connections, and the stimulus also never shows that not having dreams means you can’t erase parasitic connections.
A hypothesis is █████████ █████████ ████████ █ ██████████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ██ █████████ ███████████ ███ ██ ██████
(D) fits the “Premise → Conclusion” template common in PSAr correct answer choices:
If a hypothesis makes a prediction that explains stuff well, then we have some confirmation of that hypothesis.
“Otherwise unexplained” is a fun little complication. It’s supported by the word
When several competing ██████████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ██ █████ █ ███████ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ █████
The stimulus does mention
Also the word “only” makes this principle’s conditional statement go the wrong way. We want a principle that says, broadly, “hypotheses are confirmed only when they make good predictions.”
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic