Explaining Mirror Images

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong2% picked this

   The failure of one recent explanation of what mirrors do illustrates the need for better optical equipment in

   Too Strong: the need Out of Scope: better optical equipment The author never indicates having any issue with the field-of-sight explanation, so the fact that the author thinks the front-to-back explanation fails doesn't mean we need to do anything. We could just believe the explanation that doesn't leave out the observer. We certainly have no grounds for saying the author is agitating for better optical equipment.

   2%
2. B

   Too Strong: generally fail6% picked this

   Explanations of what mirrors do generally fail because physicists overlook the differences between objects and

   We only have one instance (front-to-back) of an explanation of what mirrors do failing. We can't inflate that into, "Yup ... this thing usually happens".

   6%
3. C

   Correct69% picked this

   One explanation of what mirrors do reveals the traditional tendency of physicists to separate a phenomenon to be explained from

   Why this is right

   Yes, this is supported by the first sentence of the final paragraph. (Beginning of 4th paragraph) in addition to intuitive appeal, the front-to-back explanation is motivated in part by the traditional desire in science to separate the observer from the phenomenon.

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

   69%
4. D

   Too Strong: depends on5% picked this

   The degree to which human beings tend to deal directly with mental constructs rather than with primary sense perceptions depends on

   In the 3rd paragraph, the author says "we (all humans) are accustomed to dealing with our mental constructs of objects rather than with the primary sense perceptions". She never qualifies that and say, "That is, unless you've had a lot of training in the sciences, in which case you deal more with primary sense perceptions". She doesn't make any connection between how much science training we've had and how much we deal with mental construct rather than primary sense perception.

   5%
5. E

   Word Salad18% picked this

   Considering objects reflected in mirrors to be mental constructs interferes with an accurate understanding of

   This answer is just taking lots of different words and phrases from the passage and tossing them together. It's hard to find an offending word (other than "interferes"). It's just the overall meaning of the sentence isn't close to anything the author ever said. The passage is never talking about whether or not we have an accurate understanding of how primary perceptions function. That's way too broad, when we are only talking about mirrors. The author is just shooting down an explanation for why the images in mirrors appear reversed. She's never complaining that how we think about mirrors disrupts our ability to have an accurate understanding about how our primary perceptions (sight / sound / taste / smell / touch) function.

   18%