Read the passage about simple rules to avoid foolish opinions, then answer the question. The author recommends that, when a matter can be settled by observation, one should observe directly instead of relying on assumption or hearsay. What method of drawing conclusions does the author clearly favour in this passage?

Introduction / Context:
The passage under discussion presents a series of simple rules that help people avoid foolish opinions and silly errors. One of the strongest rules given is that, when a question can be settled by looking at the facts in the real world, a person should observe those facts personally. The question asks which method of forming conclusions the author supports.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The passage says that to avoid foolish opinions no superhuman brain is required.
• It states that if a matter can be settled by observation, one should make the observation personally.
• The example of Aristotle and the number of teeth in women shows that he could have simply counted instead of assuming.
• The writer also criticises ancient and medieval authors who made claims about mythical creatures without seeing them.
• The theme is that checking with actual evidence is better than relying on hearsay or imagination.

Concept / Approach:
The key idea here is empiricism, the principle that observation is the foundation of knowledge in many cases. While discussion, consultation, and reasoning have their place, the passage is clearly urging readers to turn to direct observation whenever possible. So, when evaluating the options, we should look for the one that emphasises observation as the primary basis for concluding what is true or false.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Identify the rule in the passage that stands out as the central practical advice. Step 2: The passage says that if the matter is one that can be settled by observation, one should make the observation oneself. Step 3: Consider the examples given. In each case, a simple act of looking or counting would have prevented an error. Step 4: Formulate the preferred method in your own words: check the facts directly instead of relying on second hand claims. Step 5: Choose the option that matches this idea most closely.

Verification / Alternative check:
To verify, inspect each option and ask whether the passage actually supports it. Although discussion and reasoning are not condemned, they are not highlighted as the main rule. The text repeatedly contrasts assumption with observation. Therefore, any option that puts debate, consultation with authorities, or pure reasoning ahead of observation does not fit the strongest message of the passage.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option A, which emphasises discussion and debate, is not central to the authors recommendation. The passage does not argue that talking with others is the key solution.
• Option B suggests consultation with famous authorities. This would in fact repeat the mistake of relying on reputations instead of evidence, the very problem criticised in the text.
• Option D focuses on abstract reasoning without observation. This conflicts directly with the examples where a simple check, such as counting teeth, would have been better than reasoning alone.

Common Pitfalls:
Readers sometimes forget that what is being tested is the main emphasis of the passage, not every possible method of thinking. Many students pick reasoning or discussion because they sound like intellectual activities, but they miss the core point that the author is making, which is that seeing for oneself is often the safest path. Another common problem is reading only the examples without paying attention to the general rule stated at the beginning.

Final Answer:
The author clearly supports the idea that people should base their conclusions on the facts they can directly observe whenever possible. Therefore, the correct option is Drawing conclusions based primarily on direct observation when possible.