Some philosophers explain visual perception by suggesting that when we visually perceive an object, a mental image of...

Skylar on October 12, 2019

@Ryan-Mahabir Happy to help!

The given argument concludes that a claim ("when we visually perceive an object, a mental image of that object forms in our mind") is untrue ("cannot be correct") because it presents an absurd and impossible "infinite regress." Here, the concept of infinite regress is used to refer to the never-ending back-fill of the claim. Since this is a parallel reasoning question, we are looking for an answer choice that follows a similar pattern of reasoning.

Answer choice (C) is the correct choice because it follows a pattern of reasoning that is almost identical to that in the given argument. Answer choice (C) concludes that a claim ("no theory is ever new, there is always a precedent theory that contains the gist") is untrue ("clearly impossible") because it presents the same concept of infinite regress. In this case, infinite regress refers to the unrealistic task of tracing every theory back to its precedent theory. There cannot be a "first" theory because that theory would need to have a prior precedent theory, and so on and so forth without end. This is another example of the never-ending back-fill discussed in the given argument.

Answer choice (B) is incorrect because it does not show this pattern of infinite regress. Although it talks about an infinite number of currently existing theories, these are not traced back in time and therefore do not show regress.

Does this make sense? Please let us know if you have any additional questions.