Logical reasoning PrepTest 110 · Section 2 · Question 11

Incorrect. The argument does define it—"gain[ing] a direct and complete grasp of . . . motivations."

Incorrect. The only thing that it denies is the opposing point, but contradictory statements need to be both a part of the author's argument to be a flaw.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Some Psychologists: The best way to understand someone is through deep empathy/fully experiencing their motivations

Author: That's impossible, but people still understand others, so the psychologists must be wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever the author of an argument sets out to rebut an opposing point, always check to see if the argument actually rebuts the content of the first viewpoint.

Here, the author's conclusion is that the Psychologists are wrong. What does the author's argument actually rebut—is it the conclusion of the Psychologists?

The author here shows that the method of the Psychologists (deep empathy) to understand others is impossible, and yet the goal of understanding others is possible. What does this prove? Well, it proves that deep empathy can't be the only way to understand others. If the Psychologists claimed that, then the author's rebuttal would be valid and the conclusion would hold.

However, the Psychologists don't argue that this is the only way to understand others—just that it's the theoretical best way to do so. Showing that a theoretical best way isn't possible doesn't prove that they're wrong about it being theoretically the best method for doing something, so the rebuttal fails. Let's find an answer highlighting this Red Herring flaw (the difference between the theoretical best method and the only method of doing something).

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the Red Herring flaw made by the author. The Psychologists bring up what would theoretically be the best way of accomplishing something, but the author treats it as if they say it's the only way of accomplishing that thing.

Key Takeaway:
Always consider what an author's argument is actually rebutting! Frequently, the point that they're arguing against isn't what the opposing point is actually saying.

Incorrect. First, the author is rejecting the view of the authorities here. Second, it's not a flaw to accept the claims of relevant authorities, just inappropriate ones, so this answer doesn't really describe that flaw.

Incorrect. In stating that "[s]ome psychologists" make up the opposing point the author does consider that others might disagree with that group.