The kind of thoughts that keep a person from falling asleep can arise in either half of the brain. Therefore, a pers...

Victoria on July 2, 2019

Hi @Samantha-Alexis,

Let's start by going through the passage.

We know that "the kind of thoughts that keep a person from falling asleep can arise in either half of the brain."

Therefore, the passage argues, anyone who is prevented from sleeping by these kind of thoughts (which can arise in either half of the brain) can avoid these thoughts by counting sheep. This is because both the left and right halves of the brain are fully occupied with counting and imagining, respectively. As both halves are occupied, the "sleep-preventing thoughts" are excluded.

This argument is based on the fact that there are two possibilities for a certain scenario. Therefore, the passage reasons, to ensure that the scenario does not occur, one should engage in an activity which eliminates both possibilities.

Overall:

There are two possibilities (left and right half of the brain) for a certain scenario (sleep-preventing thoughts). Therefore, to ensure that the scenario (sleep-preventing thoughts) does not occur, one should engage in an activity (counting sheep) which eliminates both possibilities (left and right halves of brain).

Now, let's go through the answer choices. We are looking for the answer choice which uses reasoning that most closely parallels the reasoning employed in the passage.

A is incorrect because it advocates for using one of two strategies (brick or wood) instead of a third (stucco). This is not the same reasoning used in the passage.

C is incorrect because it provides two equally promising solutions to one problem as opposed to using one solution to pre-empt two potential problems as done in the stimulus.

D is incorrect because there is only one problem - the risk of explosion when two chemicals are mixed together - as opposed to two potential problems (the thoughts of the right and left halves of the brain) as presented in the stimulus.

E is incorrect because it presents two potential options but eliminates one as a possibility. This is not the same reasoning used in the passage.

B is correct because it directly parallels the reasoning used in the passage:

There are two possibilities (claws and teeth) for a certain scenario (cat damaging furniture). Therefore, to ensure that the scenario (cat damaging furniture) does not occur, one should engage in an activity (providing cat with other object e.g. toy mouse) which eliminates both possibilities (clawing and biting).

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.