Explanation please

@hannahnaylor5, To understand the purpose behind this fact, it is helpful to look at the context within which it is mentioned. Lines 37-39 tell us that mirrors are designed to make a two-dimensional surface appear to have depth. Note, for example .. - this phrase tells us that the author is about to provide an example of this phenomenon. ...that mirrors are among a few objects on which we almost never focus our eyes. This fact is cited in support of the contention that mirrors are designed to make a two-dimensional surface appear to have depth since we normally look at a surface but look into a multi-dimensional space - and since we look into rather than focus on the mirror, this example supports/ clarifies the idea that mirrors simulate three-dimensional reality. Let me know if this makes sense and if you have any further questions.

How can we rule out E? What in the passage tells us E is not supported?

Hi @#JW, The issue with (E) is actually the opposite - there is no information in the passage to tell us that (E) IS supported, which is the burden of proof that we need to meet. Is there a particular spot where you think there's evidence for (E)? Let us know and we can walk through it. But psychological activity in the observer changing the shape of perceived objects is not really mentioned in the passage.

Why is B incorrect? Couldn't you say that when we look into a mirror we are creating a construct of the object being presented? To create that 3 dimensional image in the mirror we need to essentially conjure it up since it is 2D.