Some psychologists claim that, in theory,

Answer choices

1. A

   Never a Flaw2% picked this

   fails to adequately define the key phrase

   Not only did the author adequately define "deep empathy", by saying it's gaining a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations, but this type of answer is never right on flaw. We're supposed to be complaining about bad logical moves. Answers that are demanding specific measurements / definitions / or names (of people alluded to) are always wrong. We're not fact-checking details.

   2%
2. B

   Not Internal Contradiction26% picked this

   assumes something that it later denies, resulting in

   This alludes to one of the ten famous flaws, Internal Contradiction. Circular, Self-Contradiction, and Equivocation are the three famous flaws that show up a ton as answer choices but are almost never the real problem. Here, people may find this answer more tempting than usual, because the author is rebutting someone by pointing out a false implication of their position. When we hear ... Suppose X were true. That would also mean Y is true. But Y isn't true. So apparently X isn't true. ... it sounds like there were contradictory ideas there, but the author isn't contradicting herself by posing a hypothetical that she later decides must not be the actual case. The first two claims there, "Suppose X were true. That would also mean Y is true", were hypothetical claims. The last two are actual claims.

   26%
3. C

   Correct70% picked this

   confuses a theoretically best way of accomplishing something with the only way

   Why this is right

   The author reasons that, "since it is psychologically impossible to [gain a direct and complete grasp of another person's motivations], there's no way to achieve understanding." That's equivalent to saying, "since it's impossible to do [deep empathy], there's no way to achieve understanding." That's equivalent to saying, "since it's impossible to do [best way to understand], there's no way to achieve understanding." All of this ties back to the fact that this author is saying, "psychologists must be wrong that deep empathy is the best way to understand someone, since deep empathy is impossible." Just because it's impossible doesn't mean they're wrong to say "in theory, it would be the best way". Within the author's attempt to demonstrate their position is wrong by means of showing a false implication, the author is making a flawed move. She's saying, "if deep empathy were really the best way to do X, then there's no way to do X, since deep empathy is impossible." That is acting like this "best way" to do X is "the only way" to do X.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   70%
4. D

   Doesn't Accept2% picked this

   accepts a claim on mere authority, without requiring

   When the author says "suppose they are right", she is not accepting the claim on mere authority. She is assuming, for the sake of argument, that the claim is true before ultimately declaring that it is false.

   2%
5. E

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   fails to consider that other psychologists may disagree with the

   Since this begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether this sounds like a good weakening objection, but if anything saying that "other psychologists disagree with these psychologists" would only strengthen the author's position.

   1%