PART A

Question 1:
The author’s main argument is that stories have the capability to stimulate our brains and
increase social interaction.
Question 2:
In Paul’s article, “The Neuroscience of Your Brain on Fiction” (2012), her main argument was
that stories have the capability to stimulate our brains and increase social interaction.

Her first introductory claim was that classical language used in certain kinds of literature
influences how the brain interprets words. Paul further explains that literature like narratives
triggers many parts of the brain and makes the reading experience feel alive. These parts of the
brain are related to the language-processing and smell-processing areas of the human brain.
This can be seen from a scientific perspective and from a literature standpoint. Paul solidifies
her claim in further lines with research done on certain words and the human brain’s response
to them. She introduces a second resource that clearly identified the cause and effect of
literature on the human brain and sensory receptors. Paul concludes that words in fiction pieces
have a significant effect on a human’s 5 senses and may affect how we perceive the world.

Paul’s next claim was that fiction creates a similar image to what humans feel, see, and do in
real life. She elucidates that novels in particular provide a reader with an opportunity to
understand the character’s thoughts and feelings. She states that novels allow readers to
explore human social and emotional life. This claim can be seen as a social lens for the second
line of reason. Paul uses an analysis by a psychologist to argue that there is substantial overlap
in the brain used to figure out the thoughts and feelings of others. She finalizes her claim by
connecting the dots with the first claim where she talks about how certain types of literature
make a person feel alive. A similar opinion is shared in the second claim where the person’s
feelings from writing may influence how they act.

Paul’s final claim, similar to the second claim, is that humans can reflect a certain literature
piece to real-life social situations. Since narratives bring different types of situations where
humans feel a certain way, readers can otherwise try to understand these feelings in order to
improve their social skills. Paul notes that negotiating with the social world is extremely tricky but
fiction illustrates a simulation that directly shows a cause-and-effect action of a relationship. This
can improve how the readers approach different people in different situations.

To conclude, Paul truly believes that fiction can change the ways of interaction between people.
She wants more people to realize that fiction has the potential to increase social interaction and
inspire other people.

Question 3:
In Paul’s article, “The Neuroscience of Your Brain on Fiction” (2012), she utilizes numerous
studies regarding neuroscience and the effects of literature to support her main argument that
stories have the capability to stimulate our brains and increase social interaction.
Paul first uses a study from 2006 done by researchers in Spain. This source was to support her
first claim that language used in certain kinds of literature influences how the brain interprets
words. The experiment was originally used to find the correlation between the brain and certain
words. The researchers used a specific machine called a functional magnetic resonance
imaging machine (fMRI). Although this may seem very convincing as a completely credible
source, this evidence does not provide the certain researchers involved in the study. Therefore,
we do not know if the experiment was conducted by people who are experts in the
neuroscientific field.

For her second claim that fiction creates a similar image to what humans feel, see, and do in
real life, Paul uses an analysis done by a psychologist, Raymond Mar at York University in
Canada. He performed 86 fMRIs and published the results in 2017. The evidence from
Raymond stated that readers can identify a character’s feelings and thoughts through various
forms of encounters in their life. Unlike the first evidence used to back up the first claim, this
source delivers the researchers that conducted the experiment. The date of this evidence is also
relevant because it was done in 2017. That is why I believe that this piece of evidence brought
by Paul is top-tier.

In her last claim that humans can reflect a certain literature piece to real-life social situations,
Paul introduces 2 different sources of evidence but uses a completely different source to further
explain her argument. The 2 sources she introduced were two studies published in 2006 and
2009 that was done by Dr. Oatley (an emeritus professor of cognitive psychology at the
University of Toronto), Dr. Mar, and several other scientists who are not named. These two
sources are somewhat credible because the dates 2006 and 2009 are still somewhat relevant in
the status quo. The source also provides a date and at least one contributor who has
information. However, the source does not provide information about Dr. Mar and “several other
scientists”. It also does not provide the exact results or procedure that the scientists used in the
experiment. That is why this source is only somewhat credible.