<p>"Still, I dream of time travel. There is something very personal about time. When the first mechanical clocks were invented, marking off time in crisp, regular intervals, it must have surprised people to discover that time flowed outside their own mental and physiological processes. Body time flows at its own variable rate, oblivious to the most precise clocks in the laborartory. In fact, the human body contains its own exquisite timepieces..... (part of passage needed to answer question)</p>
<ol>
<li>Which of the following, if true, would undermine the validity of the author's assumption about the impact of mechanical clocks ("When the first...the laboratory") in lines 37-42?
A) people were oblivious to time on a physical level before clcoks were invented.
B) People have always perceived time as composed of discrete, uniform intervals.
C) Concern about time was unnecessary until clcoks were invented.
D) Mental and phsyiological processes are very predictable.
E) Body tiem does not move at a constant rate.</li>
</ol>
<p>Collegeboard 2nd Edition Test 5 Section 3 #15</p>
<p>The answer is B. My reasoning is as follows:</p>
<p>For one the statements to undermine the author’s assumption, it must somehow be contradictory to the opinion in the passage. The passage is asserting that mental and physiological time can flow at various rates, as opposed to the constant rate of a timekeeping device. A and E both support this statement, therefore they could not undermine it. C is irrelevant to the passage. D is more relevant than C, but the fact that mental and physiological processes are predictable could not undermine a statement about time perception. B is the best option, because if people always have perceived time as discrete intervals, an accurate timekeeping machine would not be a surprise.</p>
<p>Play devils advocate…</p>
<p>(E) E supports the idea that body time moves at it’s own variable rate.
(D) D wouldn’t really undermine (destroy) the idea that the clocks moved at a crisp interval of time.
(C) C has NOTHING to do with clocks, and its functions.</p>
<p>You are left with (A) and (B)</p>
<p>Remember, there is only ONE answer.</p>
<p>(A) is wrong because it does not undermine, but in fact supports the idea that people were oblivious. But it does not show how clocks are not crisp in its intervals of time.</p>
<p>(B) is the right answer. If clocks did move at uniform intervals, then the REAL clocks would also. But it doesn’t since it moves at regular intervals. So it UNDERMINES the statement.</p>
<p>B, too, is my answer.</p>
<p>If people were surprised that time went by outside their own “mental and physiological processes,” then it would make most sense that that assumption would be undermined by a statement that said people were always aware that time occurred in discrete, permanent quota’s, or choice B.</p>
<p>I still don’t understand…I chose A because “…surprised people to discover that time flowed outside their own mental and physiological processes.” </p>
<p>A) people were oblivious to time on a physical level before clocks were invented</p>
<p>If people were “oblivious - not even aware” that time flowed on a “physical-(body time)” level then how could they be surprised that time flowed outside their own “physiological processes” The statement “surprised people to discover that time flowed outside their own mental and physiological processes” indicates that people already KNOWS that time flows in their mental and physiological processes. They are just surprised that it flows outside the TIME THEY KNOW ABOUT (body time). The fact that choice A states that they are NOT even AWARE about time in the body undermines the idea that they would be surprised.</p>
<p>BUMP…maybe I’m overthinking?..I still don’t understand</p>
<p>OOHHHHHHHHHHHHH…
A) people were oblivious to time on a physical level before clocks were invented.</p>
<p>does “physical” refer to the clock. I think I thought physical meant physiological. I hope this is the case…or else I’d be severely bemused</p>
<p>@kestrel24…I think your logic is flawed in that you are stating "B is the best option, because if people always have perceived time as discrete intervals, an accurate timekeeping machine would not be a surprise. " They are surprised not about the discrete, accuracy of the clock but ONLY SURPRISED because there is something that exists outside of their “mental and physiological processes” that measures time. So basically, people are surprised at the MERE EXISTENCE of the clock and NOT surprised by the clock’s ability to measure time in crisp, regular intervals.</p>
<p>Sorry for ALL CAPS…just placing emphasis…I think everyone here is agreeing that ‘people are surprised because time could be measured in crisp, regular intervals’ but my logic is ‘people are surprised because time could be measured outside of their own mental and physiological processes’ which is exactly what is stated in the passage. I’m not trying to be stubborn and justify my answer and ranting that CB is wrong…but trying to figure out where my logic can be flawed. </p>
<p>Really appreciate your thoughts guys ;)</p>
<p>So here is my basic analysis in a nutshell:
A) would be wrong if “physical” actually refers to “time outside of body” meaning tangible items that measure time. I chose it because I thought “physical” refers to "body time - like heart rate…physiological. … If this is the case–I understand why I am wrong.</p>
<p>But I still cannot find any justification in choosing B) - the correct answer because the author’s assumption is people are surprised that time exists out of their mental and physiological processes…not that people are surprised that time exists in crisp, regular intervals. So B in this sense, would not undermine the assumption.</p>
<p>I think you are severely overcomplicating the question. The passage is essentially saying that when you measure time in discrete units (as would a clock), your own perception of time can be change (be variable) relative to the discrete units. B is the only option that undermines this statement. A is supporting the statement, because if people were unaware of the physical flow of time then they would not realize that their perception of time is variable.</p>
<p>Edit: Kudos to you for putting so much time into trying to understand this. I would probably get bored after a few minutes and dismiss the problem as a fluke.</p>
<p>I also agree that the answer is B. I think the problem is that you seemed equate physical time from choice A with human body time. However, choice A is relating physical time to clocks, saying that people were unaware of time flowing outside of their bodies before clocks were invented. That means choice A is supporting the passage, not contradicting it.</p>
<p>B is correct because if people always thought of time as discrete uniform intervals, the clocks and their ‘crisp, regular intervals’ would hardly be surprising, which contradicts the passage.</p>
<p>Can anyone point to exactly where in the passage it states that people were surprised by the “crisp, regular intervals”? Because that seems to be the case for everyone. I guess all of you are ASSUMING that people are surprised by the “crisp,regular intervals” because all I can see is that people are surprised that it exsits outside of processes and not surprised by the “crisp, regular intervals”</p>
<p>^ “When the first mechanical clocks were invented, marking off time in crisp, regular intervals, it must have surprised people to discover that time flowed outside their own mental and physiological processes.”</p>
<p>You infer that they were surprised by the regular time intervals, since that was what caused them to realized that “time flowed outside their own mental and physiological processes”.</p>
<p>I suggest you take a look at the explanation on collegeboard.com; it may help you understand the question.</p>
<p>“When the first mechanical clocks were invented, marking off time in crisp, regular intervals, it must have surprised people to discover that time flowed outside their own mental and physiological processes.”</p>
<p>Yes, it says that it was the discovery of time flowing outside their mental processes that the author asserts is surprising, but he then goes on to talk about how mental and body time is variable. If they were unaware of time outside of their own body, they were unaware of the “crisp, regular intervals” because “crisp, regular intervals” are not variable. Therefore, if they were aware of the “crisp regular intervals” they would not be surprised, which contradicts the passage.</p>
<p>And again, I would assert that choice A supports the passage, because physical time (earth time ~ sorta) exists outside the body. Therefore, if they were unaware of it, they would be surprised by clocks, which supports the passage.</p>
<p>@kestrel24 thanks for your help 
You have been really patient and understanding. I hope there are more CC members like you.</p>
<p>No problem; glad I could help! Do you understand the problem now?</p>