Q11 - A severe blow to the head can cause one to lose consci

[anjelica.grace]

I incorrectly chose (B) over (C). I now see how the radio example is used as an analogy, but because it's used to lead to a different conclusion, I thought of it as a COUNTERexample.

Maybe I'm not looking at the core from the right perspective, but the radio example kinda blurred the lines between analogy and counterexample for me. Can someone help me distinguish between these answer choices?

Thanks.

[timmydoeslsat]

There are a couple of problems with answer choice B. The first is that this is not known as a widely accepted belief. We know some people know it, but this doesn't constitute that sweeping of a claim.

But even more directly to the point is that we do not have a counterexample to the idea that counsciousness does in fact survive after bodily death.

Instead, we are told that some people make this inference, yet in the case of a radio they would not make the same type of inference. (Inference being that something not be being shown = it is not existing)

[tzyc]

How does (D) and (C) different?
I first chose (D) but changed to (C)...

[sumukh09]

D) says the example of the damaged radio part of the argument is the "primary evidence" for the wrong conclusion. The conclusion of the argument is given after the word "similarly" in the last sentence; the one given in answer choice D) is incorrect.

C) is correct because the damaged radio part is meant to be an analogy illustrating why what some people infer about consciousness and surviving bodily death may require more evidence.

Hope this helps

[jwms]

I chose C and felt this question was easy. On my blind review, I was a little more reticent about dismissing D.

The reasons I concluded that C was still superior to D were as follows:

D writes 'primary piece of evidence' and also definitively states that this 'is analogous' (as opposed to merely drawing an analogy and claiming that it may be analogous, which is what C implies). Both of these statements lend to the stimulus being more of an argument than it really is, as the passage is merely suggesting more evidence is needed for it to be an absolute truth.

Would appreciate feedback to know if my thinking is along the right track.

[Mab6q]

I chose C and felt this question was easy. On my blind review, I was a little more reticent about dismissing D.

The reasons I concluded that C was still superior to D were as follows:

D writes 'primary piece of evidence' and also definitively states that this 'is analogous' (as opposed to merely drawing an analogy and claiming that it may be analogous, which is what C implies). Both of these statements lend to the stimulus being more of an argument than it really is, as the passage is merely suggesting more evidence is needed for it to be an absolute truth.

Would appreciate feedback to know if my thinking is along the right track.

The main reason why D is incorrect because it gets the conclusion wrong. The author concludes that we would need more evidence to conclude that consciousness does not survive bodily death, he says nothing about a radio.

[uhdang]

A question with an interesting analogy. It makes me wonder about scientific proof on consciousness.

This question type is Method of Reasoning and here is the core:

Some people infer consciousness is a product of the brain and cannot survive bodily death + a radio that becomes damaged may suddenly cease to broadcast the program but we don’t consider the program to have ceased
==>
similarly, more substantial evidence would be needed to conclude that consciousness does not survive bodily death.

@ What is interesting about the conclusion, first of all, is that an author sounds like he/she is disagreeing with an inference from "some people", but he/she does not DIRECTLY disapprove their argument, but merely states that we need more evidence. With LSAT mindset, anything that bluntly claims for author's disapproval should be distinguished with claiming for more evidence

More importantly, the biggest assumption here is that the author assumes our body and consciousness are comparable to radio and program. What if radio signal and consciousness are incomparable? Then, the whole argument based on this analogy is moot.

Here are answer analysis.

A) Like we have discussed above, although the author seems to disagree with death of consciousness from bodily death, it is not concluded to claim such. A) would be correct if the author has in fact concluded such and assumption of comparability between a body and radio were to be accepted. So, it is incompatible to be evidence.

B) "Broken radio" statement is an analogy. Counterexample is an example that would directly oppose what has been claimed. Since analogy assumes comparability and contains a possible room for doubt, this is incompatible to be concluded as a counterexample. Also, like timmydolsat said, "some people"'s claim wouldn't be considered something of widely accepted belief.

C) The author is assuming that a body and a radio works in the same way to apply the same principle of broken radio in bodily death, just as discussed in @

D) This analogous relationship is already assumed to prove whether consciousness survive bodily death or not from the conclusion. We are NOT trying to prove the analogous relationship. Out of scope.

E) Way off the point. Too generalized the language. "purely of energy" is not what we are given. We don't know if consciousness or radio program is a pure energy. Even if we let it pass, what we are trying to prove, or conclude, is NOT its dependence on something material. This would be more generalized term than trying to prove whether consciousness would survive bodily death. Additionally, this is NOT an example but an analogy.