Researcher: The vast majority of a person's dreams bear no resemblance whatsoever to real events that follow the d...

Jay-Etter on January 22, 2022

For parallel reasoning we want to make sure we have a very clear understanding of what's going on in the stimulus. Here,
Conclusion: It is unreasonable to believe you have extrasensory perception just because you've had dreams that actually matched future events.
Premise: The vast majority of dreams don't match future events.
Note that the premise is a quantifier statement: Vast majority/most

A) Premise has a necessary condition (require testing on large numbers), yet we have no necessary condition in the stimulus of our premise.
B) "many people" doesn't match most/majority
C) Doesn't match because we have no matching quantifier to most/majority
D) Yes! We have a premise that MOST people who take aspirin do not die prematurely (matching quantifier). Then, our conclusion is saying we can't conclude aspirin is dangerous just because some people who take it die prematurely.
(i.e. most people aspirin not dangerous/dreams not predicting. Therefore if someone dies from aspirin/dream actually predict future, it would be unreasonable to say aspirin is dangerous/some people can see the future).
E) Stimulus isn't saying it's unreasonable to deny a connection, the stimulus is saying it's unreasonable to affirm a connection. Doesn't match