Brain Scans

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Objection14% picked this

   criticize the research results described in the third paragraph on the grounds that they are incompatible with the basic premise

   Wrong Objection: results vs. method Too Strong: incompatible The author criticizes the research method described in the 3rd paragraph on the grounds that it gives off a misleading impression. The author never says that any results contradict ("are incompatible with") the basic premise of the modular theory.

   14%
2. B

   Opposite, if anything6% picked this

   suggest that the position articulated in the first paragraph needs to be modified to accommodate the results outlined

   The author is saying that the position articulated in the first paragraph only seems plausible because of the results outlined in the third paragraph: isn't the modular theory of mind ultimately attractive because it is illustrated os well by the products (results) of the subtractive method? So the author is basically doing the opposite of saying the results in the 3rd suggest a need to modify the position in the 1st. Instead, the author is saying the results in the 3rd are sort of cherry-picked to align perfectly with the position in the 1st.

   6%
3. C

   Out of Scope: outdated5% picked this

   contend that the research method detailed in the third paragraph relies upon an outdated theoretical model described

   The author contends that the research method detailed in the 3rd paragraph gives off misleading results that are the primary support for the modular theory of the mind (presented in the 1st). There isn't any theoretical model described in the 2nd paragraph, let alone an "outdated one". The 2nd paragraph is where the author and Uttal express some skepticism about the modular theory from the 1st.

   5%
4. D

   Out of Scope: inadequacy of views12% picked this

   argue that the empirical research outlined in the third paragraph points to the inadequacy of the competing views described

   The author seems to hold the same view as Uttal, in the 2nd paragraph, so there's no reason the author in the 4th paragraph would be trying to show that her own view from the 2nd paragraph is inadequate. Nothing in the last paragraph talks about two views. It's just saying, "the subtractive method gives off misleading results, and since the modular theory is mainly attractive because of these misleading results, doesn't that tell us something (about how modular theory is probably not right)?"

   12%
5. E

   Correct63% picked this

   show why the type of empirical evidence discussed in the third paragraph does not defeat the argument presented

   Why this is right

   This is the closest match we get for what we wanted. The last paragraph is where the author mentions a problem with the subtractive method brain scans and then relates that back to the modular theory. The 2nd paragraph is saying ... whoa, whoa, whoa, Modular Theory, we don't think that mental life is neatly compartmentalized into different regions. The 3rd paragraph begins, "If this critique of modular is valid, then how can you account for the fact that brain scans do reveal well-defined areas that light up depending on the activity?" The 4th paragraph is saying, "We can account for it by reminding you that the subtractive method used in these brain scans is hugely misleading. By design, it will give off the false impression of neat localization." So there! Our objections from the 2nd paragraph still stand. We don't trust this modular theory, and we aren't persuaded by these brain scans that are rendered in a way that artificially makes the modular theory look more correct than it is.

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

   63%