Q14

[andrewgong01]

This is a question that keeps confusing me

From the passage we know that kids were brought up as evidence that our thoughts are inferential. Why? Because when we look at kids, they misdescribe their thoughts (Line 8).

A) Seems out of scope and unsupported to talk about creativity

B) Not sure why it is right or wrong. If this correct, that adults do give dishonest result, then this should be an advantage for using kids where we get a more pure result. This is not the credited response.

C) Attractive because kids do shed light on the inferential process; in fact it was because of kids we started challenging the assumption about non-inferential thoughts . However adults being infallible seem to go against the passage because we are saying everyone has inferential thoughts , which, in turn, is fallible thoughts prone to mistakes.

D) I can't turn my head around the whole idea about kids making more cognitive errors but it is the credited response.

E) Observing others is out of scope and hence incorrect.

So it really is between B and D that I am unsure between the two choices. "C" seems attractive too but the adults being infallible seems to challenge the passage even though we do also learn from the passage the reason why adults don;t make inferential mistakes in their thoughts

[ohthatpatrick]

The question stem asks, "Why was it advantageous to study CHILDREN?"

All we know is that children tended to misdescribe stuff regarding their thoughts, and this allowed psychologists to "challenge the assumption" (line 5-6) of common sense that we know our own thoughts directly.

So we need the safest answer choice that hews closely to those ideas.

(A) "Creative" is out of scope.

(B) This is seemingly the opposite of what we've read. The CHILDREN are the ones who misdescribed their thoughts, so if anything it seems like CHILDREN are more likely than adults to give inaccurate reports.

(C) This first claim contradicts the entire point of the passage. We are far from sure that "adults are infallible in their access to their own thoughts".

(D) Soft wording, "sometimes easier", and "children are more likely to make certain cognitive errors" can be matched to 7-10, where children misdescribed their thoughts.

(E) This experiment was about inferring one's OWN thoughts, not the thoughts of others.

[DaliW995]

Hi, I found that your replies are very helpful. I will take LSAT this coming Nov and I will need a private tutor for my RC. Do you have time for private classes? Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks . DW

[DaliW995]

Hi, I found that your replies are very helpful. I will take LSAT this coming Nov and I will need a private tutor for my RC. Do you have time for private classes? Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks . DW

The question stem asks, "Why was it advantageous to study CHILDREN?"

All we know is that children tended to misdescribe stuff regarding their thoughts, and this allowed psychologists to "challenge the assumption" (line 5-6) of common sense that we know our own thoughts directly.

So we need the safest answer choice that hews closely to those ideas.

(A) "Creative" is out of scope.

(B) This is seemingly the opposite of what we've read. The CHILDREN are the ones who misdescribed their thoughts, so if anything it seems like CHILDREN are more likely than adults to give inaccurate reports.

(C) This first claim contradicts the entire point of the passage. We are far from sure that "adults are infallible in their access to their own thoughts".

(D) Soft wording, "sometimes easier", and "children are more likely to make certain cognitive errors" can be matched to 7-10, where children misdescribed their thoughts.

(E) This experiment was about inferring one's OWN thoughts, not the thoughts of others.

[UzairF607]

Can anyone please explain why answer choice B is incorrect?

The passage tells us that experts are more likely than non-experts to fail to recognize that they are inferring their thoughts simply because they make incredible fast inferences. Can't it be argued that adults are more likely than children to make faster inferences owing to their greater proficiency? If so, then adults are more likely to than children to give inaccurate reports of their thought process.

B is supposedly in contradiction to the passage because the passage tells us that children are more likely than adults to misdescribe their thoughts. However, does giving inaccurate reports of their process equal to misdescribing their thoughts? Couldn't one potentially misdescribe their thoughts yet give accurate reports of their thought process? What does misdescribe their thoughts even mean?

Thank you very much.

[JoeD532]

Heyo Uzair!

So, I have zero experience but here's my thought process on elimination.

Question prephase: The only mention of children in the entire passage is in the first paragraph, lines 5-12. They make no other appearance in the remainder of the passage. So, looking at the evidence that we have, it looks as if the answer is going to be something along the lines of children making mistakes (since that's what the passage is talking about, of course.)

Time to start chopping!

A) Literal "bruh" moment. Nothing in the passage mentions creativity from adults or kids. Chop!

B) Hm... this is good? I think? I kept this on my first run through, but ended up giving it the chop because there actually is nothing in the passage that gives a comparison between adults being more inaccurate than kids. In fact, from the passage, kids are actually the one's that are screwing up and giving inaccurate reports on their thought process. I'm giving this the tentative chop.

C) Adults aren't infalliable... the whole passage talks about how they're not infalliable, they just can't don't know it! This contradicts the passage, so I'm giving this the chop.

D) I kind of like this? Not only does the answer make sense, but there's nothing to contradict it here. The kids are absolutely making cognitive errors, but there's really nothing about them mentioned being easier to study... but wait a minute, line 10-12 says that they're much less capable of identifying these thoughts. We can probably make the inference that this inability to identify is a cognitive error. I think this is it, let's just see if we can get rid of E....

E) Another literal "bruh" moment. Kids aren't inferring the thoughts of others at all in the passage. They're looking into themselves.

Hope that explained it.