Summary
According to critics: Freudianism is incompatible with Western rationalism, because Freudianism believes in unconscious desires that can interfere with rational planning. But according to the author, Freudianism also believes that it’s possible to become aware of your unconscious desires and defeat them with rational thought.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The stimulus supports the inference that, in Freudian thought, unconscious desires do not inevitably defeat rational planning. We can also infer that Freudianism isn’t truly opposed to Western rationalism, because it holds that rational thought can still overcome unconscious desires.
A
Freudianism does not run counter to the rationalistic mainstream of Western philosophical and psychological thought
This is strongly supported by the stimulus. Because the irrational unconscious desires in Freudian thought can still be defeated by rational thought after psychoanalysis, rational thought ultimately triumphs. This means Freudianism is compatible with rationalism.
B
Freudianism holds that people can always achieve happiness through psychoanalysis
This is unsupported. The stimulus never talks about happiness, so we just don’t know what Freudianism says about achieving happiness.
C
Freudianism may be the beginning of a new trend in Western philosophical and psychological thought
This is not supported by the stimulus. The author’s claims deal with the apparent conflict between Freudianism and Western rationalism, but nothing in the stimulus suggests that Freudianism is likely to defeat rationalism as the new dominant trend.
D
psychoanalysis provides one with a rational life plan
This is not supported. The author only says that psychoanalysis can help people to defeat unconscious desires that could interfere with their pre-existing life plans. That doesn’t suggest that psychoanalysis provides new rational life plans.
E
Freudianism reflects the predominantly rationalistic spirit of Western philosophical and psychological thought more than any other psychological theory
The stimulus does not support this claim. The author’s statements allow us to infer that Freudianism and Western rationalism are not incompatible, but it doesn’t follow that no other theory has a greater influence on Freudianism.
Summarize Argument
People should put adequate sunblock on skin exposed to strong sunlight. This is because adequate sunblock prevents sunburn even if the skin is exposed to strong sunlight for a while, and overexposure to certain wavelengths of strong sunlight is the main cause of melanoma.
Notable Assumptions
The doctors assume there is overlap between the wavelengths of strong sunlight that cause melanoma and the wavelengths of strong sunlight that cause sunburn.
A
There is no evidence that there are wavelengths of sunlight that lead to both sunburn and melanoma.
This weakens the argument. It attacks the doctors’ assumption that the same wavelengths that cause melanoma cause sunburn as well.
B
There are people who have allergic reactions to certain chemicals found in many sunblocks.
This does not affect the doctors’ argument because it is not relevant. These individuals can use one of the sunblocks that do not contain the specific chemicals to which they react.
C
Many sunblocks need repeated applications to remain effective for a significant length of time.
This does not affect the argument. There is nothing in the stimulus to suggest the doctors disagree with this idea.
D
Toxins contained in certain chemical compounds also cause melanoma.
This does not affect the argument. There can be several different causes of melanoma—the doctors are only discussing the main cause, which is overexposure to certain wavelengths of strong sunlight.
E
Sunburns appear immediately after exposure to the sun but melanoma appears years after repeated exposures.
This does not affect the argument. Ideally, if one follows the doctors’ advice, one would not get sunburned in the first place, as they would have applied adequate sunblock.