Q9

[syp]

Hi, can one of the instructors put up an explanation for this question please? I got to the right answer through POE but do not completely understand why it is correct. Does C call into question the interpretation because it provides an alternate explanation as to why the children were less capable of identifying their thoughts? It wasn't the fact that they couldn't identify the thoughts, but they had trouble communicating them. Let me know if this reasoning is sound. Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yup, I think you've got it!

I would start by researching "what WAS the psychologists' interpretation of the experiment?"

WHAT HAPPENED
Kids misdescribed their own thoughts about simple phenomena,
while correctly describing those phenomena

THE INTERPRETATION
Kids have the same thoughts about the phenomena,
but are less capable of identifying these thoughts.

(As I read this part of the passage initially, I was thinking, "How do we know they MIS-described their own thoughts? How do WE know what they were thinking?")

(A) "at least one" kid is at least as capable as "at least one" adult, in terms of identifying thoughts. This is far too weak to do anything.

(B) The fact that older kids are as good as adults doesn't change our way of explaining why the younger kids seemed to be bad at describing their thoughts.

(C) YES, this is coming up with a different interpretation:
"It's not that kids are incapable of IDENTIFYING their own thoughts; it's that kids are incapable of EXPRESSING those thoughts, even once they've correctly identified them."

The whole point of this experiment, in the context of the passage, was to provide evidence that we humans might not really know our own thoughts in the infallible way we think we do.

The psychologists' interpretation of the experiment was that kids were misdescribing their thoughts because they humans have fallible access to our own thinking.

(C) is providing an alternate explanation for their "misdescribing": the kids might be infallible about detecting their thoughts but they might be impaired by their inability to express what those thoughts were.

(D) the experiment had nothing to do with understanding the difference between direct and indirect access. The children simply had to describe simple phenomena and describe their thoughts about those phenomena.

(E) The fact that experimenters may have started a study with a different goal/objective than what they ultimately came away with doesn't undermine the eventual takeaway / discovery.

The fact that Viagra trials were conducted with the issue of heart regulation as its primary concern doesn't undermine the fact that we discovered, from those trials, that Viagra has a different effect.

Hope this helps.