Passage Summary: Psychologists say the best way to understand someone is a method that is actually impossible to do. The author argues that because we can understand people, the psychologists must be wrong about what the 'best' way is.

Conclusion: The psychologists are incorrect in claiming that deep empathy is the best way to understand others.

Reasoning: Deep empathy is psychologically impossible, yet we know that understanding other people is possible.

Analysis: The author is confusing an 'ideal' with a 'requirement.' The psychologists claimed empathy is the *best* way to understand someone, not the *only* way. The author's logic is like saying, 'Experts say the best way to travel is by teleportation, but teleportation is impossible; since I just walked to the store, the experts are wrong.' Walking might be possible, but it doesn't mean teleportation wouldn't be better if it existed. Look for an answer that identifies this confusion between a method being the most effective and a method being the only one available.