PrepTest 148

Topic: Science

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • A practice with problems is introduced and contrasted with another practice, and an assumption it rests on is stated
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Accepted practice - Using brain scans to see the structure of the brain (like X-rays)
  • Practice with basic conceptual problems - Using brain scans to see mental activity/psychology
  • Latter depends on a premise - (Modular Theory of Mind) Brain is broken into component parts that have different functions and work independently

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • The Author questions the premise/assumption, with expert backing
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author - Might not be the case that the brain can be broken up like that
  • Uttall - All mental processes function of general one spread throughout brain
  • Example - Emotion and reason in different parts (Press), but you get angry for a reason

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • A challenge/question of Uttall’s critique, and a description of a process
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Challenge - Brain scans show parts of brain light up during tasks
  • fMRI process - Subtraction - Measure brain activity baseline, measure activity during task, and subtract baseline from activity
  • Author - “Seemingly plausible” reasoning - Subtraction shows just parts of brain related to task

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • Problem with process (address challenge from beginning of Paragraph 3)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Scans give false impression - only shows parts of brain, but whole brain active
  • Rhetorical question - Isn’t support for modular theory based on the clarity of these questionable scans? (Author doesn’t buy the theory)

Main Point: There are basic conceptual problems with using brain scans to show mental activity, as the premise/theory it’s based on (modular theory of mind) and the evidence used to back it up (subtractive fMRIs) both have issues.

Lines 1-3 - The Author kicks off the passage by bringing up issues with a practice

Lines 9-14 - A premise that a practice relies on is noted (in other words, an assumption)

Lines 15-17 - The Author questions the premise, with expert backing

Lines 24-27 - An example highlights the attack on that premise

Lines 29-31 - The Author raises how someone might respond to her critique

Paragraph 3 - A process is described (a bit confusingly…)

Lines 43-46 - The Author shows that she sees why this evidence is convincing, but she ultimately thinks it’s flawed (“seemingly” ahead of plausible suggests that it only seems plausible, it isn’t actually plausible)

Lines 47-52 - The Author shows why the evidence is ultimately problematic

NOT Problem/Solution - Note that the Author brings up conceptual problems with a certain tool, not problems that are meant to have solutions found for them. So there isn’t this common meta-structure present!

Assumption/Undermining - The Author brings up a premise that the opposing argument “depends on” (Lines 9-10) - in other words, an assumption. When an assumption is pointed out in an argument, you should expect someone to question it. Here, the Author and Uttall spend Paragraph 2 showing why that premise is questionable.

Example - In order to show why the premise that the opposing point (the use of brain scans to show mental activity) is questionable, the Author uses an example. The use of scans for that purpose relies on the assumption that the brain can be broken down into component parts that have a specified purpose (Lines 10-14). The Author uses the example of getting angry - while it’s commonly said that emotion and reason are handled by different parts of the brain, people generally get angry (an emotion) for a reason.

Counter a Critique - This shows up at the beginning of Paragraph 3, where the Author raises a question that suggests a critique of her view - if brain scans don’t accurately reflect mental activity, why do brain scans have only certain parts of the brain lit up? The rest of the paragraph describes how these brain scans work, but it’s confusing. We should take time to understand it - and a lot of it comes down to the overall description of fMRI - it’s the result of “subtraction” (Lines 33-34). To understand this, we need to know what is being subtracted from what. Here, it’s noted that a “baseline measurement” of brain activity during rest is subtracted from a measurement of the brain when doing an activity (Lines 41-43). So these scans aren’t showing brain activity - they’re showing additional brain activity, while the rest of the brain is still active but subtracted out of the image. And we can tell that the Author is going to point out a problem with this from the “seemingly plausible” reasoning behind it (Lines 43), as she wouldn’t say that it’s seemingly plausible if she bought it.

This is a super tough passage with 8 questions attached to it. Gear up for a challenge…

While this is a super confusing passage - especially Paragraph 3 - it’s important to focus on the basic elements that can help us make sense of it. For instance, the Author kicks off the entire passage by letting us know that she’s going to criticize the use of brain scans to picture mental activity by saying that there are “some basic conceptual problems” with it (Lines 1-3). Basic conceptual problems suggest that they’re pretty hard to overcome since they deal with the basic underlying concept.

Also, the Author points out an assumption of their use, and when the Author points out an assumption, she’ll usually undermine it. Here, the method “depends on a premise” (Lines 9-10) that “may in fact” not be true (Lines 15-17).

It gets a little fuzzy in Paragraph 3, which is where the Author starts by asking a question that challenges her view. However, since she started by noting the basic conceptual problems with using these images to see mental activity, it’s almost certain that she’s not going to abandon the critique and use Paragraph 3 to say that she was wrong all along. So we should be reading her description of fMRIs with an eye towards identifying a pivot back to talking about why they’re problematic for measuring brain activity - which we see when she calls the reasoning behind their use “seemingly plausible” (Line 43). Then, in Paragraph 4, she says that there’s an “immediately obvious” problem with the images - they obscure that the whole brain is active. That lines up with her and Uttal’s critique from Paragraph 2, bringing us back to the main point.

Even with all of this, though, we should expect to be in for a rough ride in these questions