Q22 - Meerkat "sentinels," so-called because

[lyxelyx]

Can anyone please tell me why (C) is correct? Don't understand the flaw in the argument.

Thank you!

[Pam]

The author claims that when the "sentinel" meerkat is on the lookout for predators, it is acting not just in its own self interest but in the interest of other meerkats that are searching for food.
The author offers "the loud bark emitted by the sentinel" as evidence, reasoning that because it barks and the others are alerted, the sentinel behaves altruistically. But it is conceivable the sentinel barks for other reasons-- out of fear, for example. This argument assumes that there must be a specific cause (altruism) for a certain effect (here, barking). But as discussed, there are other potential explanations (or causes for a particular effect), which would explain the meerkat's barking. Answer choice C captures this cause/effect assumption.

[samantha.b233]

I chose A. But after looking at the explanation above. I can see why C is correct.

But I do still have a question about A: is "appealing to evidence that tends to undermine rather than support the argument's conclusion" a type of logical fallacy (but just doesn't apply here)? Or is it just something made up?

It seems to me, unless the premise and the conclusion apparently contradict each other, such as "it's cold outside and therefore it's warm," an argument can use evidence that tends to undermine the conclusion and still have a sound argument, such as "it's below 30F outside and therefore it's warm," assuming that the temperature is even lower inside.

[monygg85]

I got this question right but I was also curious about A. To me though it seemed as though the evidence put forth sort of did contradict the conclusion. As in it jumps to the conclusion that the sentinel barked in order to warn others (altruism) vs self- interest...in my mind fear. The need for him to get away.

Hmm, as I type this I realize that this is all in my head and not explicitly stated in the argument therefore not undermined by the evidence.

I guess A looked attractive because I assumed all of this in my head and figured thats what the author was intending by the stimulus.

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree that (A) was somewhat appealing, because we might think to ourselves, "that barking isn't to help others, it's to express fear", but as you said, we're not given any ammunition to interpret the barking as non-altruistic, so we can't say that it works AGAINST the conclusion.

Conversely, we're not given any ammunition to interpret the barking as altruistic (working FOR the conclusion), other than that one effect the barking has is to help other meerkats take cover (this is what C is saying).

(A) could be a legitimate flaw, although it's one I've rarely if ever seen.

You could say:
A lot of people think that Jackson High's English department is struggling because of the poor test scores students achieved on their "Moby Dick" exam. But this is hogwash! Of course the students achieved low scores - half of them don't even know how to read!

This would qualify as what (A) is describing.

== other answers ==

(B) This describes a circular argument (this answer is wrong 97% of the time you see it --- a circular argument means the premise and conclusion say the same thing).

(D) Is the author inferring that the sentinel's behavior is entirely altruistic? No, it says "the sentinel's behavior is motivated at least in part by altruism". I'm not even worried with the premise-matching part of this answer since the conclusion-matching part did not match.

(E) Does the author conclude a claim is false?
In a way, yes. He concludes that "the sentinel's behavior is entirely self-interested" is false.

Is his premise that "no one has been able to prove that the sentinel's behavior is entirely self-interested"? No, so (E) is not accurate.

His premise is "the sentinel's behavior [barking] helps the other meerkats".

(E) describes the famous flaw "Absence of Evidence", which is definitely a real flaw more often than Circular Reasoning. But both of them live on as frequent trap answers because LSAT knows people have heard that fancy language before.

Hope this helps.

[ChrisZ712]

To me, immediately diving into the nearest hole for safety seems to indicate the Meerkat is not acting altruistically. It's going to get out of there first. This piece of evidence kind of contradicts the conclusion. That's why I picked A. Thoughts?

[TingL345]

quick question, aren't we suppose to take evidence as it is? I identified the evidence as "the loud bark emitted by the sentinel as it dashes for the cover of the nearest hole alerts other group members to the presence of danger". Why would not this be enough to support the conclusion?

thanks!