PrepTest 140, Section 1, Question 14
Some philosophers explain visual perception by suggesting that(63 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AAccording to some(57 more words not shown)
- BThe claim that(46 more words not shown)
- CSome historians claim(66 more words not shown)
- DSome engineers define(40 more words not shown)
- ESome people claim(50 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How does the mind see its own image?
The philosophers explain seeing an object by saying that an image forms in the mind. The author then asks who sees that image. If an inner observer must see it, and seeing always requires another mental image, that observer needs an image of the first image. Then the next image needs to be seen, producing another image, and so on. The attempted explanation never finishes.
I might question whether seeing something in the world and experiencing a mental image work the same way. Remembering a teacher's face doesn't obviously require the same process as looking at that teacher. If the processes differed, perhaps the chain would stop. That's a possible objection, but this question asks us to match the argument's pattern, not to decide whether its criticism succeeds.
What we’re looking for
The pattern to preserve is an endlessly repeating requirement. The author takes a proposed explanation, shows that it would require another instance of the same thing over and over, calls that endless chain absurd, and rejects the explanation. A choice needs that repeated dependency, not just a mention of something earlier or something infinite.
Working the answers
- A
This rejects the claim that Indo-European was the earliest language because there is evidence of human speech before it. The author doesn't argue that every language requires a prior language, which requires another prior language without end. Evidence for an earlier case is different from an endless chain required by the claim itself.
- B
The infinite number of theories may sound promising, but these are competing alternatives that fit the same data. One theory isn't said to require another theory, which then requires another. The objection is that the alternatives cannot all be true, not that accepting one starts an endless explanatory chain.
- CCorrect
The proposed rule says every theory has an earlier theory containing its central idea. Apply that rule to the earlier theory, and it needs its own predecessor. Apply it again, and the chain continues without end. Just as each mental image requires another mental image in the original, each theory requires another prior theory here. Both authors reject the initial claim because they regard the resulting endless chain as impossible.
- D
This objects that the definition makes a foundation sound unsupported. It doesn't say every supporting structure must be supported by another, and that structure by another, forever. The objection involves an allegedly absurd lack of support, not an endlessly repeated requirement for support.
- E
The collection at Alexandria came from smaller collections that already counted as libraries, so it wasn't first. That's an earlier-instance argument. Nothing says each smaller collection had to come from an earlier collection in a chain without end. We don't need to decide where the collections actually stop; the answer simply doesn't make the repeated-dependency argument.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.