PrepTest 152

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Babies can recognize that a three-eyed human is weird, but they can't speak. They must be thinking in images, and therefore thinking can occur without language.

Answer Anticipation:
The first statement is a conclusion backed up by research, but the last statement is also a conclusion backed up by the situations described in the research (after all, it starts with Thus). When there are two conclusions, we need to figure out which is the main conclusion, and which one supports it. Here, the example of babies thinking about faces supports the more general conclusion about thought occurring without language, so the statement in question is a subsidiary conclusion.

Answer Explanation:
Exactly right! The research proved a specific conclusion about the way babies think, and it uses that specific conclusion to draw a general conclusion about thinking and language.

Key Takeaway:
When faced with two conclusions in an argument, spend time figuring out which serves as support for the other. In an Argument Structure question with two conclusions, you can expect a trap answer dealing with the difference the main point and subsidiary conclusion.

While the researchers carried out the research, the conclusion of it isn't attributed to those researchers. It's possible the researchers did the study, but the Psychologist is the one drawing the last statement as a conclusion.

This is a tempting trap answer, but spending time figuring out which conclusion is the main point and which is subsidiary allows us to avoid it.

There is no refutation of the claim that infants have no knowledge of language. In fact, the whole argument rests on infants lacking knowledge of language.

A conclusion of research can't be the hypothesis of that research.