Explanation
Correct answer: C.
Choice C is the best answer because it most logically completes the text’s discussion of what people envision when making causal judgments, or judgments of cause and effect. In this context, “counterfactual” means contrary to fact. The text explains that in an experiment in which subjects judged whether one billiard ball caused or prevented another billiard ball’s movement through a gate, researchers found that the subjects looked at where the target ball would have gone if the other ball hadn’t been there at all—that is, the subjects pictured the path the target ball would have taken in a scenario contrary to the one they actually saw. This would be an example of people envisioning counterfactual scenarios when considering causes and effects.
Why the other choices are wrong
Choice A
Choice A is incorrect because it wouldn’t make sense to describe scenarios people envision when making judgments of cause and effect as “ambivalent,” or characterized by conflicting feelings. People might have conflicting feelings in response to a scenario, but a scenario itself can’t have feelings.
Choice B
Choice B is incorrect. In this context, “retrospective” would mean looking back at something that occurred in the past. The text indicates that when asked to make a judgment about the movement of the target billiard ball, subjects envisioned what would have happened if only one ball had been present—that is, the text indicates that they envisioned a scenario that hadn’t actually happened, not that they examined only what had already actually happened.
Choice D
Choice D is incorrect. The text indicates that in an experiment involving the interaction of two billiard balls, eye movements showed that subjects pictured the path one ball would have taken if the other hadn’t been present. Because the subjects were picturing a scenario in the same context (the movement of the target billiard ball), just with a different arrangement of details (only one ball present), this wouldn’t be an example of people envisioning “analogical” scenarios, or hypothetical scenarios that are comparable to the scenario in question despite having different contexts.