Q12 - The five senses have

[mxl392]

I have no idea how A can be the right answer.

The argument in the passage seems to be:

- 5 senses traditionally viewed to be distinct yet complementary
- There are synesthesiacs, however, who mix their senses up
- Therefore, there are people whose senses do not respect traditional boundaries

The answer is that synesthesiacs are unable to speak or understand words. If this is true, then synesthesiacs cannot claim they are tasting blue, which would seem to undermine the argument. However, this is not necessarily so; even if they can't efficiently communicate that they are tasting blue, we know their senses are mixed up. If they're actually tasting green and are incapable of expressing that, it doesn't change the fact that they're tasting green.

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for posting, mxl392. This is a tough question and I think you bring up a good point about sensing and communicating the sensation. But look at the stimulus again: it says the synesthesiacs "claim" they are tasting a color and "say" they can see a smell.

Because the argument does not say that they do in fact taste/see, the argument is assuming that this is the case. (A) picks up on this and weakens the argument by denying the assumption. Sure, the synesthesiacs say they are experiencing multiple senses at a time. But they aren't actually experiencing multiple senses because they have no idea what they are saying.

Wrong answers:

(B) is out of scope. The argument is limited to the five senses.

(C) does nothing to weaken. The issue is whether they perceive multiple sense at a time, not how systematically they do it.

(D) is a premise booster. We have scientific studies. Why would we care about folk legends?

(E) is out of scope. Suppressing the ability to perceive multiple senses has nothing to do with whether they perceive them in the first place.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions.

Demetri

[Sweetangel]

I interpreted answer choice B as saying: there may be other senses besides the established 5 which could account for the seeming overlap of stimuli (these are in fact distinct senses, be them synthesized or no), and so the 5 senses actually do respect the usual boundaries between one another. Is this too far-fetched?

[btwalden]

Because the argument does not say that they do in fact taste/see, the argument is assuming that this is the case. (A) picks up on this and weakens the argument by denying the assumption. Sure, the synesthesiacs say they are experiencing multiple senses at a time. But they aren't actually experiencing multiple senses because they have no idea what they are saying.

Wow...

I would never think that an answer could negate the initial logic so completely...

I would think even with this difficulty, people doing actual RESEARCH would be obtaining the data in a rational way. This answer makes it like they are just having a mentally impaired person say random words...