Freudian logic!

By process of elimination:

A) clearly nothing in the argument suggests this stance.
B) This is tricky but the argument only states that with recent advances in biology, Freud's work in psychology could be re-examined or expanded on but not necessarily obsolete.
C) False - the author fully agrees that Freud's place in history is justified by the statement: "while brilliant for his day."
E) nothing about funding.

The only answer is D.

parore26 wrote:By process of elimination:

A) clearly nothing in the argument suggests this stance.
B) This is tricky but the argument only states that with recent advances in biology, Freud's work in psychology could be re-examined or expanded on but not necessarily obsolete.
C) False - the author fully agrees that Freud's place in history is justified by the statement: "while brilliant for his day."
E) nothing about funding.

The only answer is D.

Thanks! Do you mean to say that there is no clear indication of D in the argument but because we are finally left with D, we go with it. Now, that becomes very tricky especially in the heat of the real test!

Hi,
The key phrase is "most likely." When you see phrases such as this your best bet is to use process of elimination. In this case, for example, the author would also likely favor with B. There is some indication, albeit weak, that contemporary biological developments has enabled further understanding and therefore a greater reliance on biological ... may indeed lead to greater understanding.

If you just saw something that stated what can be concluded from the argument then it is very likely that only one of the options is supported by the argument. Hope that helps.

parore26 wrote:Hi,
The key phrase is "most likely." When you see phrases such as this your best bet is to use process of elimination. In this case, for example, the author would also likely favor with B. There is some indication, albeit weak, that contemporary biological developments has enabled further understanding and therefore a greater reliance on biological ... may indeed lead to greater understanding.

If you just saw something that stated what can be concluded from the argument then it is very likely that only one of the options is supported by the argument. Hope that helps.

Sorry to bump this post up...but I still dont understand why B cannot be the answer...

IMO D.

Premises:
Freud�s theories of the workings of the mind were formulated before most of this century�s great advances in neurophysiology and biochemistry.
Today, we have a far deeper understanding of the biological components of thought, emotion, and behavior than was dreamed of eighty years ago.

Conclusion:
It would be foolish to continue parroting Freud�s psychological theories as if these advances had never occurred.

Let us prephrase what the author is trying to say. Author says that Freud developed some theories on working of mind. But now, since we have a much more deeper understanding of the biological components, it is foolish to continue parroting Freud's psychological theories.

There is a thin line here. Author starts of with Praise for Freud and then says that his theories are Outdated.

(A) the abandonment of most of Freud�s theories

Author doesnot specify that he wants to ban Freud's theories. Ban would have been applicable if those theories are found to be incorrect.

(B) a greater reliance on biological rather than psychological explanations of behavior

This is a generalized statement. To be precise, we need to say this is an exaggerated statement. Author only says that Freud's theories should not be parroted. He does not go to the extent of saying that we should rely on biological rather than psychological explanations.

(C) a critical reexamination of Freud�s place in the history of psychology

This is irrelevant. Author does not discuss about history of psychology.

(D) a reexamination of Freud�s theories in the light of contemporary biology

This closely relates to what the author meant. This option does not exaggerate and also calls into question Freud's theories in relation with biology.

(E) increased financial support for studies in neurophysiology and biochemistry

Irrelevant to the argument. No mentioning of Financial support exists in the argument.

pick D

Hope this helps!!

Thanks....

kvcpk wrote:IMO D.

Premises:
Freud�s theories of the workings of the mind were formulated before most of this century�s great advances in neurophysiology and biochemistry.
Today, we have a far deeper understanding of the biological components of thought, emotion, and behavior than was dreamed of eighty years ago.

Conclusion:
It would be foolish to continue parroting Freud�s psychological theories as if these advances had never occurred.

Let us prephrase what the author is trying to say. Author says that Freud developed some theories on working of mind. But now, since we have a much more deeper understanding of the biological components, it is foolish to continue parroting Freud's psychological theories.

There is a thin line here. Author starts of with Praise for Freud and then says that his theories are Outdated.

(A) the abandonment of most of Freud�s theories

Author doesnot specify that he wants to ban Freud's theories. Ban would have been applicable if those theories are found to be incorrect.

(B) a greater reliance on biological rather than psychological explanations of behavior

This is a generalized statement. To be precise, we need to say this is an exaggerated statement. Author only says that Freud's theories should not be parroted. He does not go to the extent of saying that we should rely on biological rather than psychological explanations.

(C) a critical reexamination of Freud�s place in the history of psychology

This is irrelevant. Author does not discuss about history of psychology.

(D) a reexamination of Freud�s theories in the light of contemporary biology

This closely relates to what the author meant. This option does not exaggerate and also calls into question Freud's theories in relation with biology.

(E) increased financial support for studies in neurophysiology and biochemistry

Irrelevant to the argument. No mentioning of Financial support exists in the argument.

pick D

Hope this helps!!

Liked the way u explained why B is not the correct choice. You stressed on the importance of not going too far from the argument.

Thanks once again.