Q11 - Even though apes are the only

[Shiggins]

I got this question wrong at first. I was stuck between b and c.

The last sentence is the conclusion and it states :
"Therefore, philosophical thought is unique to humans."

I understood that as saying only humans (H) have philosophical thought (PT).
I just want to know is it safe to phrase it this way. Outside of the LSAT this may or may not be true, but from what is stated in the stimulus, I understood it as that.

From there I looked at the evidence:

No ape (~H) has ever used its human language skills to ask such philosophical questions. (APQ)

Humans = H
Philosophical thought = PT
Ask philosophical questions = APQ

So conclusion: PT-> H
Evidence: ~H-> ~APQ
I got this from Ape not being able to ask. I feel I can safely assume from the stimulus that an ape is not a human,

If you take the contrapositive of the conclusion: ~H-> ~PT

~H-> ~APQ-> ~PT the assumption lies in ~APQ-> ~PT
or PT-> APQ which is what choice C states APQ can be swapped for the word expressed.

I believe choice B is wrong bc the assumption is about expressing human language. Even if you negate choice B it does not let you know anything about the expression of human language even if they can still "think" in human language.

If anyone could clarify If what I wrote is correct or needs some tuning it would really be much appreciated.

[noah]

I'll start by explaining it the way I would approach it:

The conclusion of this argument is that only humans have philosophical thought (which I'll refer to as "philosophy" from now on to type less!). Why is it that only humans have philosophy?

It's because apes are the only nonhuman animals to learn human language, and they haven't used it to ask a philosophical question.

Strange argument! Let's see if we can find a gap. I accept that apes are the only ones to learn our language and that they haven't asked any deep questions yet, but does it mean only humans have philosophy? For one, perhaps those apes just weren't compelled to speak their mind. Similarly, perhaps dolphins have philosophy, but express it in their own dolphin language.

We're looking for a necessary assumption, and (C) is one as it addresses that second gap. If we negate it, and assume that philosophy could be expressed in nonhuman languages, then the argument doesn't make sense since the premises are all about what's been done (or hasn't) in human language.

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is tricky. We actually learned that apes could learn human language, so (A) is just trying to take-down a premise!

(B) is tempting, but "thinking" is too broad. We're interested in philisophical thinking. Furthermore, whether apes are capable is not actually the issue, it's whether they do it.

(D) is tempting, but we're not interested in the relative difficulty of the tasks. Even if speaking were harder than thinking (in human language), we still could have apes be able to speak and not be able to think.

(E) is similar to (D) in that it compares how difficult various tasks are. It's irrelevant how hard these tasks are.

Now, I looked at your approach, and it looks great! Note that I used a less formal-looking approach, but our approaches are actually almost identical otherwise.

[u2manish]

Dear All (if Shiggins is still around then he could help as well),

Please help us with this basic or rather confusing form for diagramming(at least for us).


"No ape (~H) has ever used its human language skills to ask such philosophical questions. (APQ)"


Shiggins has used the above sentence to diagram it in this way (~H---->~APQ)

But should it not be the following way:
H---->~APQ

Is it not that the No or none or Never modify the necessary condition?

I am kinda confused. If anyone could help with formal logic approach to this question, that will be great.

Thanks,
M
PS: I was able to get the question right without using formal logic as suggested but NOAH. But i want to understand the other way as well.

[timmydoeslsat]

"No ape (~H) has ever used its human language skills to ask such philosophical questions. (APQ)"


Shiggins has used the above sentence to diagram it in this way (~H---->~APQ)

But should it not be the following way:
H---->~APQ

Good question. I agree that the formal diagramming technique is not necessary for this question, you are wise to use this as an opportunity to sharpen your conditional reasoning and diagramming.

We will start with something more simple.

1) No reptile has teeth.

If reptile ---> ~ teeth

----or----

If teeth ---> ~ reptile

Rather than think about a formulaic structure of how to diagram, I always think about things I know for certain.

If it is the case that no reptile has teeth, what do i know if it something has teeth. We know it is not a reptile. Contrapositively, we know that if it is a reptile, it does not have teeth.

You are right that a "No" statement negates the necessary condition. However, I think it may be more fruitful to think about certainties that can come from statements.

"No ape has ever used its human language skills to ask such philosophical questions"

What do we know if it is an ape?

Ape ---> ~ Used human language skills for philosophy

----or----

Used human language skills for philosophy ---> ~Ape

[wj097]

(D) is tempting, but we're not interested in the relative difficulty of the tasks. Even if speaking were harder than thinking (in human language), we still could have apes be able to speak and not be able to think.

(E) is similar to (D) in that it compares how difficult various tasks are. It's irrelevant how hard these tasks are.

Noah, while I agree that (E) isn't necessary for the argument to hold, but don't think the concept of difficulty of learning is wholly irrelevant. This distinction might be crucial for assumption question but if this was a strengthen/weaken question then, I actually think (E) would qualify as relevant and more so would actually weaken the argument.

If you negate (E), "learning to express philosophical thoughts is as easy as learning human language", while there's no guarantee that the ape will actually adopt philosophical thinking, now it is as likely for ape to adopt philosophical thinking as it did with human language, which then questions the validity of the conclusion that philosophical thinking is unique to human.

Not trying to be picky, but want to know if it would qualify as weakener.

Thx

[hayleychen12]

Hi!!!! I've been pondering on this one for a whole night.
Basic structure:
Premises:
1.Apes are the only animal(other than human) able to learn human language.

2.But no ape ever ask the philosophical question in human language.

Conclusion:
Only human have philosophical thought.


During the test, I will definitely go with C.

But I think the word "express" worth some further speculation.

First of all, I think express philosophical thought and have philosophical thought are two different concept.

So if we negate C, we have a statement like this" philosophical thought can be expressed not only in human language.

I don't think this negation really undermine the whole stimulus, here is a extreme situation: an animal( not ape) is able to express philosophical thought, but not really have philosophical thought itself. Then this situation doesn't hurt the whole stimulus.

I think if the we can add "expression" to the last sentence of the stimulus , then C will be airtight.

ANY HELP WILL BE APPRECIATED!!!!

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're right that "whether you can think it" is a separate matter from "whether you can express it".

Just remember that the correct answer to Necessary Assumption isn't trying to prove anything. It's fine for there to still be loose ends.

And when you negate NA choices and see if they weaken, they don't need to REFUTE the argument to be correct.

They can simply weaken by showing a way in which the author's thinking was oblivious or overly narrow to a relevant possibility.

The author basically acts like we can restrict the discussion of "which animals might have philosophical thought?" by initially considering the question, "Well, which animals can even learn human language?"

That's how the author boxes himself into this "short list" of "we basically only have apes and humans to consider. Since apes can't do it, I guess humans are the only one."

(C) is getting at the initial assumption that led to him getting boxed into thinking that apes and humans were the only ones worth considering.

[SJK493]

Can anyone explain/confirm the conditional reasoning behind this?
I just wasn't able to diagram this at all.