Passage Summary: You can't explain vision by saying we see 'pictures' in our heads, because then you'd need a tiny person in your head to see those pictures, and that person would need their own pictures, forever.

Conclusion: The hypothesis that visual perception involves the formation of mental images is incorrect.

Reasoning: If this hypothesis were true, it would require an internal observer to see the image, which would require another image, leading to an impossible infinite regress.

Analysis: This is a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument, which disproves a theory by showing it leads to a logically impossible or 'absurd' result—in this case, an infinite regress. To find a parallel, look for an argument that follows this exact blueprint: 'If theory X were true, it would trigger a chain of requirements that never ends; since such a chain is impossible, theory X must be false.' The subject matter doesn't matter, but the logical 'loop' is the key feature to match.