Q13

[andrewgong01]

I am not sure if my reasoning is correct for this one because a lot of the answer choices seemed attractive.

My pre-phase was the illusion of direct knowledge stems from the fact that we become experts like chess players.

A) Ignoring feedback was never mentioned unless some inference on ignoring feedback can be drawn.

B)All looks good but overlooking instances was not mentioned unless some inference can be drawn regarding this

C)Seems pretty close to the passage. The passage's discussion on being experts did talk about how the expertise means we change our perception towards the subject without really noticing it ( see the quoted lines below)

D) I think this statement is true but is not the reason why we have illusions of direct knowledge.

E) This seems attractive in that in plays on the fact that maybe our thought process is not all that precise. Regardless, the passage does not say it is because of uncertain internal thoughts that creates the illusion of non-inferential thought. IF anything it is because of our sheer certainity that creates the illusion. The sheer certainty has some support in lines 54-56

Actual Answer from the Text: Line 35-40 and Line 52 to 54. In the 35-40 section it says "we fail to notice we are making them [inferences]" because we are experts. In the Line 52 to 54 it affirms it is the "frequent occurrence " of our activities that creates this illusion.

Hence between C and D even though I personally do not know why D is wrong C is a closer fit, especially to Lines 35-40

[ohthatpatrick]

For any question stem with good keywords, we should first embark on a search through the passage to find those keywords (or a fitting, tight match).

In looking for why we have an illusion of direct knowledge of our own thoughts, I find lines 22-27, which give us the "psychologists" / "illusion" / "noninferential and infallible knowledge" (direct knowledge).

But this sentence is saying that the reason we feel this illusion is analogous to what happens to experts. I want to gloss over the expert/chess metaphor and get to the takeaway that brings it back to the real conversation: us and our seemingly direct knowledge of our thoughts.

Lines 35-41 give me the answer I'm looking for:
we're so fast at making inferences about our mental world that we fail to notice we're making them. This leads to the supposition (illusion) that we have direct knowledge of our thoughts.

(C) sounds like that answer, since "we're so fast we fail to notice we're making inferences" matches with "we are unaware of the inferential process".

(D) doesn't sound anything like 35-41, since nothing in there said our inferences were accurate, nor did it say our perceptions of the world were accurate.

I find that by investing the time to find the "Proof Window" for each question stem (when possible), my options are severely restricted. The answer to their question is lines 35-41, so I just have to find the answer choice that most closely resembles those lines.