Read the passage carefully and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Comprehension:
What does a good life look like to you? For some, the phrase may conjure up images of a close-knit family, a steady job, and a Victorian house at the end of a street arched with oak trees. Others may focus on the goal of making a difference in the world, whether by working as a nurse or teacher, volunteering, or pouring their energy into environmental activism. According to Aristotlean theory, the first kind of life would be classified as “hedonic”—one based on pleasure, comfort, stability, and strong social relationships. The second is“eudaimonic,” primarily concerned with the sense of purpose and fulfilment one gets by contributing to the greater good. The ancient Greek philosopher outlined these ideas in his treatise Nicomachean Ethics, and the psychological sciences have pretty much stuck with them ever since when discussing the possibilities of what people might want out of their time on Earth. But a new paper, published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Review, suggests there’s another way to live a good life. It isn’t focused on happiness or purpose, but rather it’s a life that’s “psychologically rich.”
What is a psychologically rich life? According to authors Shige Oishi, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, and Erin Westgate, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Florida, it’s one characterized by “interesting experiences in which novelty and/or complexity are accompanied by profound changes in perspective.” Studying abroad, for example, is one way that college students often introduce psychological richness into their lives. As they learn more about a new country’s customs and history, they’re often prompted to reconsider the social mores of their own cultures. Deciding to embark on a difficult new career path or immersing one’s self in avant-garde art(the paper gives a specific shout-out to James Joyce’s Ulysses) also could make a person feel as if their life is more psychologically rich.
Crucially, an experience doesn’t have to be fun in order to qualify as psychologically enriching. It might even be a hardship. Living through war or a natural disaster might make it hard to feel as though you’re living a particularly happy or purposeful life, but you can still come out of the experience with psychological richness. Or you might encounter less dramatic but nonetheless painful events: infertility, chronic illness, unemployment. Regardless of the specifics, you may experience suffering but still find value in how your experience shapes your understanding of yourself and the world around you.
Given the elements discussed in the passage, identifying the conclusion can be quite tricky, perhaps even causing inextricable confusion. A way around this would be to trace the dominant ideas discussed here - at the centre of the discussion lies the question: "What qualifies as a good life?". The author presents two perspectives that have been considered so far - hedonic [happiness] and eudaimonic [purpose]. A third way to view this question is then presented - a standpoint with "psychological richness" at its core. The author elaborates on this concept and emphasises that positive and negative experiences can be labelled as psychologically rich. He then builds on this idea, conveying that even bad experiences can help a person lead a good life [this appears to be the primary conclusion mainly because it ties in with the question that the author poses at the beginning of the discussion]. Option C correctly presents this.
Option A: The statement here is assertive - a better version would be: "A psychologically rich life can/could be a good life." Furthermore, this is not necessarily the primary conclusion since it misses out on a portion of the discussion presented towards the end.
Option B: While true, the author uses this point to answer the question posed at the beginning; thus, this is an ancillary idea and not the primary conclusion.
Option D: The author presents a third alternative; however, he doesn't seek to merely underline that "a good life should not be seen in binary terms." [there is more to the passage than this - the author builds on the idea of psychological richness]
Option E: This is not implied in the passage and, thus, can be rejected.
Create a FREE account and get: