PT158 S3 Q22 ExplanationSome researchers claim that people

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match28% picked this

   appealing to the ambiguity of a word in an attempt to show that a

   The argument does not attempt to show that the correlation is universal. In fact, it explicitly acknowledges that the correlation is "far from universal." The argument's goal is to defend the generalization against the objection that non-universality disproves it — not to prove universality. The ambiguity of a word (like "comprehension") is cited to explain why apparent exceptions are not genuine counterexamples, not to establish that no exceptions exist. This answer mischaracterizes both the conclusion (the argument concedes non-universality) and the method (the argument reconciles, not universalizes).

   28%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match17% picked this

   appealing to a universal psychological generalization in an attempt to support a claim about the

   The argument does not appeal to a universal psychological generalization to support a claim about gesturing. The psychological fact cited — that some people perceive "comprehension" as expressing physical action — is not universal. It is a specific observation about individual variation in concept categorization. The argument uses this particular psychological observation to explain apparent exceptions to the researchers' claim, not as a sweeping generalization about all human psychology. Furthermore, the argument is defending the researchers' claim, not establishing a new one. This answer mischaracterizes both the type of psychological evidence (particular, not universal) and the argumentative goal (defense, not support of a new claim).

   17%
3. C

   Correct36% picked this

   citing a psychological fact to try to reconcile a generalization with

   Why this is right

   The argument cites a psychological fact — that some people perceive words like "comprehension" as expressing physical actions rather than abstract states — to reconcile the researchers' generalization (people gesture less when discussing abstract concepts) with apparently disconfirming instances (cases where the correlation does not hold). The psychological fact explains why these cases are not genuine counterexamples: if someone perceives "comprehension" as physical, then gesturing while discussing it is actually consistent with the rule, not a violation of it. The method is reconciliation through reinterpretation: the exceptions look like exceptions only because we are miscategorizing what the speaker considers abstract. This answer precisely describes that strategy.

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

   36%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match8% picked this

   advocating an explanation for a phenomenon by attempting to demonstrate that other possible

   The argument does not attempt to demonstrate that other explanations are impossible. It provides a single explanation for the apparent exceptions and uses that to defend the generalization. There is no systematic elimination of alternative accounts. The argument does not even address alternative explanations for the gesture-abstraction correlation — it addresses alternative interpretations of the apparent counterexamples. "Advocating an explanation by demonstrating other possibilities are unlikely" describes process-of-elimination reasoning, which is not what happens here. The argument is constructive (here is why the exceptions are not real exceptions), not eliminative (here is why no other explanation works).

   8%
5. E

   Opposite11% picked this

   offering a reason for believing that a widely accepted generalization requires still

   The argument's entire purpose is to DEFEND the generalization against the claim that it needs more support or should be rejected. This answer says the argument offers reasons for believing the generalization requires still more evidence. That is the exact opposite of what the argument does. The argument says: the apparent exceptions do not disprove the claim (because of individual variation in concept perception), so the non-universality objection fails. It is strengthening the generalization's position, not arguing that it needs additional evidence. This answer describes the objection the argument is responding to, not the argument's own method.

   11%