IMO B

The argument concludes that when tinted glasses are worn b'cos wearer has tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal.
So what is the author assuming? He is assuming that there are no other reasons why patients wear those glasses. B states the same.

So, if wearers use glasses to distance themselves from other people thn the argument of the author fails. The argument holds if the author assumes it.


Would really appreciate if the source and OA are provided along with the questions.
Thanks.

P1: Doctors in britain have long suspected that people who wear tinted glasses are prone to depression

P2: Psychological tests confirm the relationship

P3: People who have had a life that is psychologically painful, choose to wear the glasses to reduce visual stimulation because it is perceived as irritating

C: A person who wears the glasses, does so, because he/she is prone to depression


Now, lets take a look at the options

A: This could be an assumption for what causes depression, the causes of depression are out of our scope. Eliminated

B: Nowhere is a relationship between tinted glasses, and distancing from people mentioned in the argument. Eliminated.

C: Causes of depression, again, out of our scope. Eliminated.

D: This need not be the case, the argument doesn't state that the hypochondriac wears the glasses to give a signal to the others. This is again deviating from the argument. Eliminated.

E: This is a necessary assumption in the argument, if the glasses dim the light enough to depress the mood, then the glasses end up being the cause of depression rather than a means of relief from depression.

Only if the glasses are assumed not to dim the light enough to depress the mood of the wearer, will the above argument hold.

akhp77 wrote:Question is in Image




OA: E

Please explain.

two things occurring simultaneously : wearing tinted glass and depression

author concludes : depression is causing ppl to wear tinted glass.

assumption : the relationship is not reversed OR there are no alternate causes for depression.

E is a paraphrase of the first OR condition, i.e. tinting is not causing depression.

Harsha! I was about to post, but then I saw your post...What a succinct and helpful explanation you've provided!

@akhp77: for a far less succinct (but hopefully as helpful) discussion of how to identify and anayze causal arguments, see: https://www.beatthegmat.com/on-causal-ar ... 56647.html

Thanks for good help.

Sometime, when I go through stimulus; at the end, I lost.
I believe that I have to make note of each premises in sort form.

Testluv wrote:Harsha! I was about to post, but then I saw your post...What a succinct and helpful explanation you've provided!

@akhp77: for a far less succinct (but hopefully as helpful) discussion of how to identify and anayze causal arguments, see: https://www.beatthegmat.com/on-causal-ar ... 56647.html

thanks Testluv! actually, the explanation, which I gave above, is inspired by your post on causal arguments. I saw the link to it in Govi's signature. It was an instant fav. and has been in my bookmarks since then. Every keystroke of yours is priceless! Thanks again for guiding us!

iamseer wrote:IMO B

The argument concludes that when tinted glasses are worn b'cos wearer has tendency to be depressed or hypochondriacal.
So what is the author assuming? He is assuming that there are no other reasons why patients wear those glasses. B states the same.

So, if wearers use glasses to distance themselves from other people thn the argument of the author fails. The argument holds if the author assumes it.


Would really appreciate if the source and OA are provided along with the questions.
Thanks.

Flaw in above explanation:

Y(wearing of glasses) is caused by X(depression)

There could be many causes for Y to occur. B is just one of those other causes. So, B is NOT an assumption. B could have been an assumption had the argument been Y(wearing of glasses) is caused by only X(depression).

Thanks for sharing this Q akhp77.
Thanks harshvardhanc for the precise explanation
Thanks TestLuv for the nice post on causal arguments.

@harshvardhanc: I would be grateful if could elaborate a bit more on "OR there are no alternate causes for depression. "