The argument concludes that we will soon be able to explain all mental functions based on neurobiology, as physicalists predict. How do we know? The argument sets out three conditions for this goal: knowledge of neurons and their basic functions, knowledge of how neurons interact, and delineation of the mental functions to be explained. It then tells us that two of those conditions have been met: we know about neurons' basic functions, and we've done the delineation of mental functions.

There are two issues that are most apparent with this argument. First, the three conditions are presented as necessary conditions, but the conclusion treats their fulfillment as sufficient for the physicalists' goal. Second, even if they were jointly sufficient conditions, only two out of three conditions are met. As far as we know, the condition of knowing how neurons interact is still unmet.

Since we've predicted two possible flaws, we can start out by hunting through the answer choices. If we don't find either flaw we're looking for, we can revert to process of elimination. The correct answer will do two things: it will accurately describe the argument, and it will identify a flaw. Incorrect answers will be inaccurate, or they will point out things the argument does that aren't flaws.