Text 1: Neuroscientist Dr. Helen Long studies decision time. "Deliberation takes measurable time—brain processes unfold," Long writes. "The idea that we could have decided otherwise in the same circumstances is an illusion. Neural timing shows decisions are determined."
Text 2: Philosopher Dr. Kevin Park questions the inference. "Neural processing time doesn't establish determinism," Park argues. "That decisions take time is compatible with genuine alternatives being processed. Duration doesn't show which outcome was inevitable."
What does Park argue is a logical gap in Long's reasoning?
That brains don't process information
That temporal duration of decision-making doesn't entail that outcomes were inevitable
That decisions don't take any time
That neuroscience cannot study brains
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Long infers determinism from decision duration. Park argues duration doesn't prove inevitability—processing time could involve genuinely open possibilities being evaluated.
- Evidence: Park: "Duration doesn't show which outcome was inevitable."
- Reasoning: Time taken ≠ outcome fixed.
- Conclusion: The inference from duration to determinism doesn't follow.
Choice A is incorrect because Park accepts processing. Choice C is incorrect because Park accepts decisions take time. Choice D is incorrect because Park engages neuroscience.