PT10.S1.Q23 > Analytics

Hide analysis

No one knows what purposes, if any, dreams serve, although there are a number of hypotheses. █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ████████████ ██████████████ █████████████ ██████████ ████████████ ███████ ███████ █████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ███ ███ █████ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █ ████ █████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ████████████ ███ ███ ████████████████████ ███████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ██████ ████ ██████ █████ ████ █████ ██████ █████ ███ ███ █████████ ████████████

Argument Structure · Cleaning House

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.

23.

The reasoning in the argument ████ ███████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████

Question Type

Principle

PSA - find the rule

PSAr: Link The Premise To The Conclusion

Focusing narrowly on the argument itself (the premise and the conclusion) – in other words, setting the context aside – proves quite valuable in anticipating the correct answer to this question. PSAr questions often feature correct answers with a simple “Premise → Conclusion” structure. If you apply that principle to this question ahead of time, you can hunt for the correct answer without spending too much time and mental energy eliminating the incorrect ones.

To emphasize this point, here’s a very distilled expression of the core argument:

P1: The hypothesis predicts a thing.
P2: That thing happens!
________
Con: We have some confirmation of the hypothesis.

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.

21%

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.

13%

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 anomalous in the stimulus, which means “weird in a way that’s hard to explain or account for.”

63%

When several competing ██████████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ██ █████ █ ███████ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ █████

The stimulus does mention the existence of numerous hypotheses, but it only gives us information about one. We have no idea what predictions rival hypotheses do or don’t make.

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.”

PrepTest 10 - Section 1 - Question 23

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Confirm action