"Physicalists" expect that ultimately all mental functions will be explainable in neurobiological terms. Achieving this goal requires knowledge of how neurons and their basic functions, a knowledge of how neurons interact, and a delineation of the psychological faculties to be explained. At present, there is a substantial amount of fundamental knowledge about the basic functions of neurons, and the scope and character of such psychological capacities as visual perception and memory are well understood. Thus, as the physicalists claim, mental functions are bound to receive explanations in neurobiological terms in the near future.
Which one of the following indicates an error in the reasoning in the passage?
(A) The conclusion contradicts the claim of the physicalists.
(B) The passage fails to describe exactly what is currently known about the basic functions of neurons.
(C) The word "neurobiological" is used as though it had the same meaning as the word "mental."
(D) The argument does not indicate whether it would be useful to explain mental functions in neurobiological terms.
(E) The passage does not indicate that any knowledge has been achieved about how neurons interact.
OA E
Target Test Prep is 20% off right now!
Use code FLASH20
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Physicalists
This topic has expert replies
-
vikram_k51
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:32 am
- Location: Mumbai
- Thanked: 2 times
-
punitkaur
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 168
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:48 pm
- Thanked: 6 times
I agree with the OA. Here are my explainations, which I am not sure may be all right or wrong but I will give it a try
(A) There is no contradiction as the conclusion agrees with the physicalists claim
(B) I considered this as a contender but later eliminated it because for the conclusion to be true, it is just necessary to make sure that we have the knowledge of all of the following - neurons basic functions, pyschological faculties, neurons interaction. Details about them are not necessary
(C) Irrelevant as we are not concerned about the meaning of terminologies but rather one being explained in terms of the other
(D) The argument is not concerned about the usefulness of explaination, but rather to know if it is possible to explain
(E) This is the flaw in reasoning as the conclusion is being drawn even though this knowledge is missing
(A) There is no contradiction as the conclusion agrees with the physicalists claim
(B) I considered this as a contender but later eliminated it because for the conclusion to be true, it is just necessary to make sure that we have the knowledge of all of the following - neurons basic functions, pyschological faculties, neurons interaction. Details about them are not necessary
(C) Irrelevant as we are not concerned about the meaning of terminologies but rather one being explained in terms of the other
(D) The argument is not concerned about the usefulness of explaination, but rather to know if it is possible to explain
(E) This is the flaw in reasoning as the conclusion is being drawn even though this knowledge is missing
