The passage tells us that repressors who unconsciously inhibit their display of emotion and nonrepressors who consciously inhibit their display of emotion both exhibit increases in heart-rate when they encounter emotion-provoking situations. The passage then concludes that this means inhibition causes increases in heart-rate. We are asked to find the assumption required by this argument.
(A) "Encountering an emotion-provoking situation is not sufficient to cause nonrepressors' heart rates to rise sharply."
The passage concludes that inhibition is responsible for the increase in heart rate. To ensure this is true, we need to rule out other possible causes for the increase in heart rate, such as the presence of an emotion-provoking situation. That is exactly what this answer choice does. If we negate (A) to say that emotion-provoking situations are sufficient to cause nonrepressors' heart rates to increase, we could not conclude that inhibition is responsible for the increase. Therefore, (A) is a required assumption and is correct.
(D) "People who are ordinarily very emotional can refrain from feeling strong emotions when experimenters ask them to do so."
This answer choice is incorrect because it is irrelevant to the argument. The passage discusses people who inhibit their displays of emotion, not their feelings.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
RemiFebruary 1, 2021
thank you for the explanation! however I do have a follow-up question, the passage says that it causes a sharp increase in heart rate, however, from what I can tell, the author doesn't indicate that it has to be the only cause, so couldn't the act of inhibiting emotions AND encountering an emotion-provoking situation both be sufficiant at the same time?
