Explaining Mirror Images

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: top-to-bottom explanation7% picked this

   accept the top-to-bottom explanation of what

   There isn't ever a top-to-bottom explanation discussed in the passage, just field-of-sight and front-to-back.

   7%
2. B

   Correct66% picked this

   understand the front-to-back explanation of what

   Why this is right

   The 2nd sentence of the 3rd paragraph is saying that "the front-to-back explanation" appeals strongly and seems natural because we're accustomed to dealing with constructs not perceptions. So being accustomed to dealing with constructs, not perceptions, facilitates the natural, intuitive appeal of the front-to-back explanation. This answer requires that we stretch from "people find it appealing / it seems natural / its intuitive appeal (beginning of 4th paragraph" to the answer choice's phrasing of "facilitates understanding". It's not a perfect match, but it's the closest we're offered. It's easier to understand something that's intuitive and feels natural than to understand something that's surprising or counterintuitive.

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

   66%
3. C

   Out of Scope: challenge explanations10% picked this

   challenge complex explanations of common perceptual

   This answer choice is saying that because people are accustomed to dealing with their mental constructs rather than their primary perceptions, they're better able to fight scientists when it comes to challenging the scientists' complex explanation of a perceptual observations? It's probably fair to say that being accustomed to constructs not perceptions increases our likelihood of fighting someone with a more challengingly complex explanation of how mirrors work, but that's different from saying it helps us to be able to challenge complex explanations. More importantly, the passage is never talking about ordinary people challenging complex explanations. They might find such explanations less intuitively appealing, but nothing here is saying that they actively try to rebut those explanations.

   10%
4. D

   Opposite11% picked this

   reject customarily reliable equations between perceptions and their associated

   We're accustomed to dealing with constructs, not perceptions, because we accept the customarily reliable equation between the two.

   11%
5. E

   Unsupported5% picked this

   overemphasize the fact that mirrors simulate sense impressions

   I don't know where to begin with this word salad. It's incredibly awkward to say "X facilitated my ability to overemphasize ... " Who ever lacks the ability to overemphasize? We're free to overemphasize anything whenever we'd like to. That's free speech. So that verb is already an answer-killer. But could we even say that "it's a fact that mirrors simulate sense impressions of objects"? No, that doesn't make any sense either. Maybe an artificial intelligence computer could simulate sense impressions. Mirrors are an object that provide us cognitive beings with our sense impressions. They aren't simulating sense impressions. Because our perception / mental construct of the image in a mirror is one with depth, we could say that our mental construct of what we're seeing is simulating depth when it perceives the mirror's surface. Taking a big step back, this answer seems to even say the opposite of what the passage is saying. Because we deal with constructs not perceptions, we find the front-to-back explanation naturally appealing, which means we're under-emphasizing or failing to recognize that we're only pretending / simulating the idea that images in mirrors have depth.

   5%