The conclusion of the argument is: "more substantial evidence would be needed to conclude that consciousness does not survive bodily death." Why? Because despite the fact that some people infer that consciousness is a product of the brain and cannot survive bodily death (because a severe blow to the head can cause one to lose consciousness), radios that become damaged can stop broadcasting, and yet we do not conclude that the program itself has ceased to exist.
The information given to us about the radio is not evidence proving that more substantial evidence is needed to conclude that consciousness does not survive bodily death, but rather it is used to show a similar situation that can be used to parallel a loss of consciousness.
Therefore, answer choice (C) is correct because the radio is actually an analogy to loss of consciousness, which is used to help draw out the conclusion, rather than actual evidence put forth towards the conclusion, i.e. answer choice (D).
Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
kswopeAugust 17, 2019
You said that "The information given to us about the radio is not evidence proving that more substantial evidence is needed to conclude that consciousness does not survive bodily death, but rather it is used to show a similar situation that can be used to parallel a loss of consciousness." But why isn't it? If the conclusion is that more substantial evidence would be needed to conclude that consciousness does not survive bodily death, wouldn't it be correct to infer that the example/premise would support this conclusion? Since premises are supposed to support a conclusion?
Audrey-SwopeAugust 20, 2019
How do you know that the last two sentences where to overall conclusion ?
Abigayle-KingJuly 15, 2020
I am also stuck on the question raised by Kristin.... why is it that the radio example is not considered evidence in support of of the conclusion?
VictoriaJuly 15, 2020
Hi @kswope, @Audrey-Swope, and @Abigayle-King,
Thanks for your questions! Hopefully I can help to clear things up a bit.
The passage concludes that more substantial evidence is needed to conclude that consciousness does not survive bodily death. More substantial than what? The evidence that is currently used by some people to infer that consciousness does not survive bodily death i.e. that a severe blow to the head can cause one to lose consciousness.
The radio analogy is used as evidence to support this conclusion, but answer choice (D) is incorrect for two reasons.
(1) (D) says that the analogy is cited as the primary piece of evidence supporting the conclusion. This is a strong statement and doesn't really illustrate what is going on here.
(2) Most importantly, (D) says that the analogy supports the conclusion that the relationship of consciousness to the brain is analogous to the relationship between a radio program and a radio. This is not the conclusion of the passage.
The author uses the analogy to illustrate their point i.e. why do we not conclude that the radio program has ceased to exist, but we conclude that consciousness ceases to exist? The conclusion of the passage is not that these relationships are analogous, but that we should import the uncertainty attached to the radio example into our understandings of consciousness and gather more substantial evidence to draw our conclusion.
Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
