Psychologist: People tend to make certain cognitive errors when they predict how a given event would affect their future happiness. But people should not necessarily try to rid themselves of this tendency. After all, in a visual context, lines that are actually parallel often appear to people as if they converge. If a surgeon offered to restructure your eyes and visual cortex so that parallel lines would no longer ever appear to converge, it would not be reasonable to take the surgeon up on the offer.
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.
A
attempts to refute a claim that a particular event is inevitable by establishing the possibility of an alternative event
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 a theory by calling into question an assumption on which the theory is based
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 action might not be appropriate by suggesting that a corresponding action in an analogous situation is not appropriate
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 situations are similar by establishing that the same action would be reasonable in each situation
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 a generalization and then uses that generalization to argue against a particular action
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.
A
The human body processes the beta-carotene present in foods much more efficiently than it does beta-carotene supplements.
B
Beta-carotene must be taken for longer than 12 years to have any cancer-preventive effects.
C
Foods rich in beta-carotene also tend to contain other nutrients that assist in the human body’s absorption of beta-carotene.
D
In the 12-year study, half of the subjects were given beta-carotene supplements and half were given a placebo.
E
In the 24-year study, the percentage of the subjects who had a high intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked cigarettes was much smaller than the percentage of the subjects with a low intake of beta-carotene-rich foods who smoked.
This is a tough SA question that doesn't make itself easily translatable into Lawgic.
The argument in the stimulus:
(Premise) without health, happiness is not obtainable
(Premise, using Group 3 translation) happiness --> not sacrifice health [meaning you have health or you are healthy]
___________
(Conclusion) never sacrifice health to acquire money
(Conclusion, using Group 4 translation) acquire money --> not sacrifice health
So what's missing?
(sufficient assumption) acquire money --> happiness
(sufficient assumption) acquire money only if not make happiness unobtainable. The double negation "not" and "un" cancel out.
Together, we get:
acquire money --> happiness --> not sacrifice health
___________
acquire money --> not sacrifice health
This is a tough SA question that doesn't make itself easily translatable into Lawgic.
The argument in the stimulus:
(Premise) without health, happiness is not obtainable
(Premise, using Group 3 translation) happiness --> not sacrifice health [meaning you have health or you are healthy]
___________
(Conclusion) never sacrifice health to acquire money
(Conclusion, using Group 4 translation) acquire money --> not sacrifice health
So what's missing?
(sufficient assumption) acquire money --> happiness
(sufficient assumption) acquire money only if not make happiness unobtainable. The double negation "not" and "un" cancel out.
Together, we get:
acquire money --> happiness --> not sacrifice health
___________
acquire money --> not sacrifice health