by ohthatpatrick Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:59 pm
In the last paragraph, the author says that the psychologists came "PERILOUSLY CLOSE" to making this claim, but they DIDN'T actually claim it or imply it.
Why would an author use the phrase "perilously close"? Why would it have been "dangerous" for the psychologists to say "we infer our thinking solely from our external behavior"?
The most common sense interpretation is that the author is suggesting, "it would clearly be dumb to argue that we infer our thinking SOLELY from our external behavior. These psychologists are not saying that, but they're coming perilously close to saying that. If they said something dumb like that, we'd all tune out or argue with them."
He goes on to flesh out what they psychologists DO think we base our inferences on, and most/all of it is INTERNAL behavior.
So what would the author say about the view that "we base our inferences SOLEY on our own external behavior?"
1. these psychologists do not believe that is the case
2. it would've been a dumb thing for them to have argued
(A) This doesn't sound like either of the prephrases. A view that emphasizes observing external behavior would actually be aligned with science, not denying the possibility of science.
(B) No, the author is saying these psychologists are NOT suggesting this dumb idea. They know what's what.
(C) No one ever identifies it as a prevailing view. In fact, the prevailing view before was that "we DON'T make inferences about our own thinking".
(D) The author is saying "it seems to contradict common sense, and thus is UN-sound."
(E) YES, this is LSAT saying "the author thinks it's a dumb view".
This ultimately tests a reader's ability to understand the rhetorical meaning of saying, "X came perilously close to saying Y ... luckily, for X's sake, X is not saying Y. (Because Y is dumb)"