Passage Summary: A psychologist defines intelligence as the ability to figure things out specifically to solve problems. The author argues this is wrong because if someone understands the world just for the sake of it, we'd still call them smart.

Conclusion: The cognitive psychologist's definition of intelligence is inadequate.

Reasoning: A being could understand how things work without the specific motivation of overcoming an obstacle, yet we would still consider that being intelligent.

Analysis: To identify the method of reasoning here, focus on how the author attacks the psychologist's definition. The psychologist sets up a requirement: intelligence must involve overcoming obstacles. The author counters this by presenting a hypothetical scenario where that requirement isn't met, yet the label 'intelligence' still applies. This is a classic use of a counterexample to prove that a proposed definition is too restrictive or narrow.