Theory of the Mind

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: cannot be overcome7% picked this

   It cannot be overcome because of the radically different conceptions of evidence favored by each

   Although the author is despondent about the current lack of communication, she says at the beginning of the 3rd, on the face of it, it seems unlikely that these two approaches could be reconciled That's not as strong as this answer, which is 100% pessimistic. Furthermore, the last paragraph proposes ways for them to overcome the impasse, so clearly the author has hopes it can be overcome.

   7%
2. B

   Correct79% picked this

   It is resolvable only if the two sides can find common ground from which to assess their

   Why this is right

   In the second to last sentence of the 3rd paragraph, it says this: For reasoned discourse to occur, there must be shared assumptions or beliefs. Starting from radically divergent perspectives, they lack a common context in which to consider evidence presented from each other's perspectives. That's a strong match for the language in this answer choice. For reasoned discourse to occur it is resolvable there must be only if shared assumptions or beliefs / common context common ground from which to assess competing conceptions of evidence in which to consider evidence presented from each other's perspectives Also helping us to like this answer is the fact that we're supporting this answer with the sentence that is immediately connected to the keyword clue. "current impasse" pointed us to "present debate" in the preceding sentence of the 3rd paragraph.

   Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   79%
3. C

   Too Strong: accurate requires both5% picked this

   It is unavoidable unless both sides recognize that an accurate understanding of the mind requires

   We can't find anywhere in the passage where the author says something as strong as "accurate understanding of the mind requires both types". This kind of claim would indicate that the author already has a very strong idea that an accurate understanding of the world definitely needs subjectivity and objectivity. This author isn't inserting her own opinions on the matter of "how should the universe be understood?" She's reporting on the impasse between these two schools of philosophy and playing the role of mediator to try to get them talking again.

   5%
4. D

   Too Strong: easily correctable1% picked this

   It is based on an easily correctable misunderstanding between the two sides about the

   Our author definitely thinks the situation could be correctable, because she proposes possible ways to correct it in the final paragraph. But easily correctable? This goes against the first line of the 3rd paragraph, in which she's saying, "It looks pretty hopeless to reconcile these two perspectives, on the face of it." The investigation she calls for in the 5th paragraph is what she hopes would correct the impasse, but it sounds like it would be a fairly tricky conversation / lengthy investigation. We just can't support the notion that it will be easily fixed.

   1%
5. E

   Too Strong: prevent further progress8% picked this

   It will prevent further progress until alternate ways of gaining knowledge about the

   The author never says that "this impasse will halt us; we'll have to find new ways of gaining knowledge". This answer is trying to play off a misunderstanding of the final sentence of the passage, in which the author is saying, "maybe we'll discover new forms of knowledge about how the mind works". But nothing here is as harsh as saying "further progress is prevented until we make those discoveries".

   8%