Q22 - Repressors- people who unconsciously

[c.s.sun5]

I am completely stuck on this. I have no idea why the answer is (A). Anyone can help me sort through the logic in this?

Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

This is a great argument. Tough answer choice to recognize without a good analysis of the argument itself. A little skill at negating assumption choices wouldn't hurt, either.

Premises:
1. ppl who unconsciously inhibit have increased heart rates in emotional situations
2. ppl who consciously inhibit have increased heart rates in emotional situations

Conclusion:
the act of inhibiting (conscious or unconscious) causes increased heart rates

Take a second to consider this! Is that the conclusion you expected? That the act of inhibiting is what caused the heart rates to rise? Wouldn't one expect the conclusion to say that emotional situations cause heart rates to rise?

Now, consider what an assumption is. It is something REQUIRED by the argument if the conclusion is to be drawn. So, if we want to draw the conclusion that the act of inhibiting is what causes the heart rates to rise for both groups of people, what must be true?

It must be true that something else isn't causing one of the groups' heart rates to rise.

This is what (A) says -- the increase wasn't caused by something else! (the emotional encounter itself).

Try negating (A). Take out the "not." What if encountering the situation is enough to make the heart rates of one of the groups to rise? Then the conclusion that the causal agent is the act of repressing suddenly becomes doubtful. Thus, this must be our assumption.

As for the wrong answers:

(B) is about the relative ability of these groups to inhibit certain emotional displays. Fascinating, but out of scope. We need to know about the heart rate!

(C) is about excitement - out of scope.

(D) isn't even addressing the groups we're discussing. Who are these emotional people? Do they inhibit?

(E) is about situations that do NOT provoke emotions - that's not what this argument is about.

[kmewmewblue]

Can anybody articulate the reason why (E) is wrong?

thank you.

[tamwaiman]

Can anybody articulate the reason why (E) is wrong?

thank you.

The rising of heart rate is relative, not absolute.

for example,
normally,
group 1 = 80 beats/min.
group 2 = 60 beats/min.

after acting of inhibiting,
group 1 = 110 beats/min.
group 2 = 120 beats/min.

It still matches the conclusion--both groups have sharp rises.

[ldanny24]

Hi,

Is it correct in understanding the stimulus as saying:

Encountering emotion provoking situations causes repressors and nonrepressors to inhibit their emotions which then causes significant increases in heart rate?

If so, couldn't this be diagrammed as saying

A -> B -> C

The answer (A) says ~A -> C

Though I see how this could be true, I don't see how this is necessary for the argument.

If we were to negate (A) and say emotion-provoking situations are sufficient, couldn't that also mesh with the argument? since emotion provoking situations are sufficient to cause repressors/nonrepressors to inhibit emotions which would then be sufficient to cause increased heart rate.

Sort of: A -> C
which could be understood in light of A -> B -> C

Please explain. Thank you in advance

[noah]

Is it correct in understanding the stimulus as saying:

Encountering emotion provoking situations causes repressors and nonrepressors to inhibit their emotions which then causes significant increases in heart rate?

I don't see this as the stimulus' argument. Not sure if you're reading our LR guide, but you need to find the core of the argument, a conclusion and the premise (or premises) that support it. Trying to turn everything into formal conditional logic will hurt you a lot more than it will help you. In this case, you've actually added in relationships into the argument.

Take a look at Brian's discussion above after you've thought about that. Tell me if you have any questions after digesting that.

Good luck!

[ganbayou]

Hi,

Can I delete E based on the idea that even though the heart rates are not the same in the situations that do not provoke emotions, each separately can raise heart rate because of the act of inhibiting displays of emotion?
At first I thought E should be assumed in order to put the two groups under the same situation, but it is not necessary I guess?

Thank you

[maryadkins]

Good question, and exactly! Even if the two groups of people start from different base level heart rates, the argument that inhibiting emotion RISES those heart rates could still be true. In other words, (E) doesn't have to be true in order for the argument to make any sense. The two groups could have different average heart rates in normal, non-emotionally charged life. So it cannot be a required assumption.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Premises:
Repressors unconsciously inhibit their display of emotion
Non-repressors inhibit their displays of emotion.
Both repressors and non repressors exhibit significant increases in heart rate when they encounter emotion-provoking situations.
Conclusion: Inhibiting ones emotions rather unconsciously or consciously causes a sharp rise on heart beat.

Flaw: Presumes that because two things are correlated (inhibiting emotions and increase and heart beat) that they are causually related. Perhaps there is an alternative hypothesis such as emotion provoking situations that causes the increase in heart rate. The correct answer will negate the possibility of a competing hypothesis.

(A) Bingo.
(B) This implies that the argument compared how well non repressors and repressors inhibited displays of emotion when the argument did no such thing.
(C) This implies that the argument compared how excited non repressors and repressors were in emotion provoking situations, no such comparison is made.
(D) .. All this dos is preserve the integrity of the experiment, it doesn't need to be true.
(E) This doesn't need to be true in order for the causal claim made in the conclusion to stand. The argument said they exhibited similar responses not identical ones. Plus it doesn't discuss the increase in heart rates in relationship to inhibiting emotions

[finn]

This is a great argument. Tough answer choice to recognize without a good analysis of the argument itself. A little skill at negating assumption choices wouldn't hurt, either.

Premises:
1. ppl who unconsciously inhibit have increased heart rates in emotional situations
2. ppl who consciously inhibit have increased heart rates in emotional situations

Conclusion:
the act of inhibiting (conscious or unconscious) causes increased heart rates

Take a second to consider this! Is that the conclusion you expected? That the act of inhibiting is what caused the heart rates to rise? Wouldn't one expect the conclusion to say that emotional situations cause heart rates to rise?

Now, consider what an assumption is. It is something REQUIRED by the argument if the conclusion is to be drawn. So, if we want to draw the conclusion that the act of inhibiting is what causes the heart rates to rise for both groups of people, what must be true?

It must be true that something else isn't causing one of the groups' heart rates to rise.

This is what (A) says -- the increase wasn't caused by something else! (the emotional encounter itself).

Try negating (A). Take out the "not." What if encountering the situation is enough to make the heart rates of one of the groups to rise? Then the conclusion that the causal agent is the act of repressing suddenly becomes doubtful. Thus, this must be our assumption.

As for the wrong answers:

(B) is about the relative ability of these groups to inhibit certain emotional displays. Fascinating, but out of scope. We need to know about the heart rate!

(C) is about excitement - out of scope.

(D) isn't even addressing the groups we're discussing. Who are these emotional people? Do they inhibit?

(E) is about situations that do NOT provoke emotions - that's not what this argument is about.

I couldn't get over the fact that
AC (A) "the encountering an emotion provoking situation is not sufficient to cause non repressors heart rates to rise sharply"
because isn't there a possibility of having more than one cause? since we can deriving conditional logic to claim causality?

but I went back to the stimulus and saw the conclusion and realized that it is saying "the very act of ~" part.
is this similar to saying that it is the only reason/cause?

"the very act of inhibiting displays of emotion, whether done consciously or unconsciously, causes a sharp rise in heart rate."
is
the only act of inhibiting displays of emotion, whether done consciously or unconsciously, causes a sharp rise in heart rate


I felt like what I've explained above defined the scope of the conclusion that is why we could assume AC(A)

I'm not sure that I understood this correctly... BUT MAN this post is old... I hope people read my post..