PT20, LR1, #9 Forum

[SaintsTheMetal]

Question about taste aversion.

I read B as meaning: adults are more likely than children to see the connection between what they eat and their health, thus are more able to rationalize why they got sick, instead of linking it with what they ate. Children are less able to make this distinction, so thus will become taste averse more often.

Although reading C, it is probably a stronger answer, I was torn between the two while doing it real-time.

Does anyone have any solid way I can eliminate B and not make this mistake again.. or notice some key wording that I missed in making my analysis of B?

Thanks

[Kurst]

I read B as meaning: adults are more likely than children to see the connection between what they eat and their health, thus are more able to rationalize why they got sick, instead of linking it with what they ate. Children are less able to make this distinction, so thus will become taste averse more often.

Your interpretation of (B) is correct up to the point at which you conclude children "will become taste averse more often." That simply does not follow: if a child is less likely than an adult to see a connection between their health and the food that they eat, why would that child tend to develop aversions to food? The child feels sick, but does not associate her sickness with the food that she ate. Think of a kid whose parents permit her to eat ten pounds of candy. The kid feels wretched, but if (B) is true, does not blame the candy for her illness. Maybe it was the chlorine in the swimming pool, or the dizzying theme park ride. (B) weakens the argument.

[SaintsTheMetal]

I read B as meaning: adults are more likely than children to see the connection between what they eat and their health, thus are more able to rationalize why they got sick, instead of linking it with what they ate. Children are less able to make this distinction, so thus will become taste averse more often.

Your interpretation of (B) is correct up to the point at which you conclude children "will become taste averse more often." That simply does not follow: if a child is less likely than an adult to see a connection between their health and the food that they eat, why would that child tend to develop aversions to food? The child feels sick, but does not associate her sickness with the food that she ate. Think of a kid whose parents permit her to eat ten pounds of candy. The kid feels wretched, but if (B) is true, does not blame the candy for her illness. Maybe it was the chlorine in the swimming pool, or the dizzying theme park ride. (B) weakens the argument.

Thank you for the response.

Obviously I'm arguing the wrong POV here, but to me it does follow, a la:
Adult's knowledge of sickness will sometimes override psychological taste aversion, because he knows it was likely contaminated or molded or whatever
So then a child doesn't have this knowledge, thus his brain will subconsciously link the sickness to the most memorable food

For example, child and adult eat a sandwich with spicy mustard on it and get sick. The adult probably knows it was probably molded bread or bad meat or whatever. The kid would would have no knowledge of this, so his brain just associates the sickness whatever it remembers: the mustard.

Obviously I'm pretty much just overthinking it.. I guess I was approaching this as if the taste aversion was some kind of psychological phenomena that with knowledge can be diminished, when I guess the question implies the opposite.

While it makes sense, for some reason this is just not clicking with me