DISCUSSION: Paragraph 2 explains how we fail to notice we’re making inferences. The author gives the analogy of a chess player. The player is an expert and they think they simply “know” the answer and can perceive chess forms directly.
But actually, the expert is so quick that they don’t notice the calculation process that let them make a rapid judgement. And we are experts about our own mind. Thus, we don’t notice that we are observing our thoughts and drawing inferences on that basis (some good, some bad).
So we should look for expertise that blinds someone to the process they are using.
- CORRECT. This is a perfect match. The anthropologist can likely form inferences about their culture, but they couldn’t necessarily tell you why. Whereas, when describing an external culture, they would be more able to give reasons.
- This is just a presumably true statement. But it’s not even a possible basis for an analogy. We’re really looking for a situation where a sentient being has a blind spot – ideally a human.
- This should have said that children become unable to learn from concrete experiences. Humans are unable to perceive their thoughts directly, according to the passage.
- Here, judges are capable of trying cases involving their family. They’re just forbidden to do so. Whereas humans can’t perceive their thoughts directly.
- This would be like one part of the brain delegating tasks to another in the perception of thoughts. Nothing like that happened in the passage, the authors didn’t divide the brain into parts.
And as in D, the commander could do the delegated tasks, if they had the time. Whereas in the passage, humans can’t perceive thoughts directly, no matter how much time or effort they use.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions