PT159 S1 Q13 ExplanationA cognitive psychologist has claimed that intelligence

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Description16% picked this

   rejects a definition on the grounds that the terms employed in the definition would make it impractical to

   The author doesn't reject the definition because it's impractical to apply or because we can't tell which cases it covers. The author actually applies it cleanly to a hypothetical case and shows the result is wrong intuitively. Practicality isn't the complaint.

   16%
2. B

   Correct43% picked this

   uses a hypothetical application of a definition to argue that the definition would have

   Why this is right

   This is exactly the method. The author posits a hypothetical case (a being that understands how things work without being driven by an obstacle), applies the psychologist's definition to it (which would deny intelligence in this case), and argues this consequence is counterintuitive — we'd still recognize the being as intelligent. The argument uses the hypothetical application of the definition to expose its unacceptable counterintuitive consequence.

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

   43%
3. C

   Bad Description19% picked this

   argues that a proposed definition does not specify the meaning of the concept being defined narrowly enough for

   The author doesn't complain that the definition is too vague to apply. The complaint is that when applied, the definition excludes cases we'd intuitively include — that's a problem of being too narrow (or wrong), not too imprecise. Specificity isn't the issue.

   19%
4. D

   Bad Description22% picked this

   rejects a definition on the grounds that if it were accepted as correct, the term being defined would apply to things to

   This says the definition would apply the term too broadly — to things "intelligence" doesn't normally apply to. But the author's argument runs the opposite way: the definition would exclude a case we'd normally include (the being that understands without an obstacle). The objection is about underinclusion, not overinclusion.

   22%
5. E

   Bad Description0% picked this

   argues against a proposed definition on the grounds that those who support it do so at least partly on

   The author doesn't accuse the psychologist of inappropriately appealing to authority. The author argues directly from intuition about a hypothetical case. There's no claim about how the definition's defenders justify it.

   0%