Logical reasoning PrepTest 113 · Section 2 · Question 5

Incorrect. This answer doesn't discuss whether consciousness fits into this category of physical phenomena. Additionally, this answer is already more or less established in the first sentence.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Physical theory can explain → Physical systems/structures/functions
Therefore - Consciousness - not Physical theories explanation

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions frequently deal with conditional logic, so the inclusion of a conditional indicator word ("only") should have us diagramming. That conditional rule establishes that if a physical theory can explain something, then it must deal solely with physical systems/structures/functions. The conclusion then says that such a theory can't explain consciousness.

In order to get the conclusion and premise to align, we need to take the contrapositive of it:
not Physical systems/structures/functions → not Physical theory can explain

When a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise question has conditional logic, generally one of two flaws will be present. Either the argument will skip a step in a conditional chain (either between premises, or from the premise chain to the conclusion), or it will fail to establish that the sufficient condition is met in the situation to which it attempts to apply the conditional.

Here, there's a single conditional premise, so it's not missing a step in a chain. Rather, it fails to establish that the situation to which it attempts to apply the conditional—consciousness—meets the sufficient condition. In order to justify the conclusion, then, we should establish that consciousness meets the sufficient condition—that it involves something other than physical systems/structures/functions.

Note that the opening line establishes only that consciousness "seems" to arise from such physical processes, which isn't strong enough to guarantee the conditional applies.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that consciousness doesn't just involve physical processes, and so the conditional applies and it's guaranteed that a physical theory can't fully explain consciousness, thus justifying the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
When a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise question brings up a single conditional statement, it's likely flawed in that it fails to establish the situation the conditional is being applied to meets the sufficient condition, and the correct answer will ensure that it does.

Incorrect. First, this answer brings up consciousness as having physical elements, which cuts against the argument. Even then, it doesn't establish whether these physical elements make up the entirety of consciousness, and having non-physical elements is what's needed to make the argument work. Additionally, this answer is about what is known, not what is true, so it fails to match up with the conclusion, which is about the reality of the situation.

Incorrect. This answer establishes that consciousness meets the necessary criteria for having a complete explanation in a physical theory, so it runs counter to the argument.

Incorrect. This answer still doesn't establish whether consciousness has a purely physical structure/function, so it falls short of establishing the conclusion.