Text 1: Literary critic Dr. Anna Gold analyzes fiction's moral education. "Novels develop empathy by immersing readers in others' perspectives," Gold writes. "Literary imagination cultivates moral sensitivity that philosophy's abstractions cannot achieve."
Text 2: Psychologist Dr. Kevin Park studies reading effects. "Fiction reading correlates with empathy, but causation is unclear," Park notes. "Empathetic people may read more fiction rather than fiction creating empathy. The direction of influence remains scientifically contested."
What methodological issue does Park raise about Gold's argument?
That novels don't contain characters
That the observed relationship might not run in the direction Gold assumes
That empathy cannot be measured
That philosophy never uses abstraction
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Gold assumes fiction → empathy. Park notes the relationship might run empathy → fiction reading. Correlation exists but directionality is uncertain.
- Evidence: Park: "Empathetic people may read more fiction."
- Reasoning: Same correlation, opposite causal direction.
- Conclusion: Park challenges Gold's assumed causal direction.
Choice A is incorrect because Park doesn't dispute content. Choice C is incorrect because Park's studies presuppose measurement. Choice D is incorrect because abstraction isn't Park's point.