The following text is from a philosophy of mind article.
The hard problem of consciousness asks why subjective experience exists at all. We can explain how the brain processes information, recognizes patterns, and generates behaviors without necessarily explaining why these processes are accompanied by felt experience. A complete neuroscientific account might describe every neural correlate of seeing red without explaining what it's like to experience redness. This explanatory gap has led some philosophers to question whether consciousness can be reduced to physical processes.
Which choice best describes the overall structure of the text?
It defines a philosophical problem and explains why it resists standard solutions.
It provides a comprehensive history of consciousness studies.
It argues that neuroscience is useless for understanding the mind.
It compares different theories of consciousness in detail.
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the best answer. The text defines the hard problem and explains why neuroscience (standard approach) can't close the explanatory gap.
- Evidence: The text defines the problem: "asks why subjective experience exists." It explains the limitation: "explain how... without necessarily explaining why." It notes the result: "explanatory gap has led some philosophers to question."
- Reasoning: The structure presents a definition followed by an explanation of why standard methods fail to solve it.
- Conclusion: This matches "defines a philosophical problem and explains why it resists standard solutions."
💡 Strategy: Identify the "Hard Problem" and the "Explanatory Gap" (Standard science can't cross it).
Choice B is incorrect because history isn't traced. Choice C is incorrect because neuroscience's validity isn't denied. Choice D is incorrect because theories aren't compared.