Q11 - Human intelligence is not possible without human emoti

[LSAT-Chang]

Hello! Since I am in the process of practicing diagramming conditional logic in LR questions, I decided to post up my own solution to this problem. Any feedback would be great!

So our argument core is the second sentence (I noticed the first had nothing to do with the core since the conclusion starts off by saying "for that reason ALONE"). So we have:

Premise: Computer --> NO emotions
_______________________
Conclusion: Computer --> NOT display intelligence

So in order to get that conclusion, we would need to link the "NOT display intelligence" to the "NO emotions" so it would be:

Computer --> NO emotions --> NOT display intelligence

THEN we could conclude: Computer --> NOT display intelligence (and this is the author's conclusion)

So the gap is: "NO emotions --> NOT display intelligence" or the contrapositive which is: "display intelligence --> emotions"

And answer choice (E) has exactly the contrapositive stated above: intelligent --> emotions

I was a little wary of answer choice (E) since I didn't think "being able to display intelligence" meant the same thing has "being intelligent" but Matt, one of the instructors' word of advice helped: you can be a little loose with word choices in the beginning, and be more strict on later ones. Since this is Q11, I decided to go with this choice although I wasn't 100% satisfied. Plus, none of the other ones even relate to the core.

(A) - incorrect because then we have "emotions --> display intelligence", which is negated logic (and reversed logic of the contrapositive)!
(B) - out of scope, who cares whether comp tech will greatly or not greatly advance beyond its current state???
(C) - intelligent --> identify its emotions, I was honestly tempted by this answer at first, but this answer choice talks about "identifying its emotions" whereas the argument is about "having emotions" you can identify something but not have it -- I thought this was a greater leap than "display intelligence" and "being intelligent" since if you are displaying intelligence, than you clearly have the intelligence that is being displayed inside of you.
(D) - where is this comparison coming from?? out of nowhere.
(E) - correct answer!

Would you guys agree with my reason for eliminating (C)?

[noah]

Great work!

I do agree with your interpretation of (C).

I think your approach is spot on. You could also use the core approach, and it might save you time on a problem like this that's a bit easier:

computer never has emotions --> computer never can display intelligence.

Gap: is it true that not having emotions means not displaying intelligence?

[LSAT-Chang]

I completely agree with you. I think I need to learn when best to use the core approach and when to use the formal logic approach. I do feel like the formal logic approach is a lot more useful on those problems that have like 4-5 sentences all listed out in conditional statements. But I think I'm just afraid to use the core approach because I might be working with the wrong core, but this problem can be solved a lot faster with the core approach (there really is only 2 sentences). Thanks for your feedback!

[peg_city]

Question for someone who would be gracious enough to answer:

Wouldn't we assume E from the first sentence?

"Human intelligence is not possible without human emotion"

HI -> HE

Thanks

[LSAT-Chang]

Good catch!! (E) would just be a restatement of the first sentence. I honestly wouldn't have picked it if I hadn't read the second sentence since just by looking at the first sentence and answer choice (E), it definitely looks to me like just another premise-booster or something of that sort since we are already given the information so there is no need to say it again. But in the end, I would have ended up with (E) since the second sentence clearly assumes that!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Also, notice that the conclusion begins with an unusual qualification. It says that "for that reason alone..." What reason is the argument referring to? It refers to the claim that a computer is something that can never have emotions. What does that mean for us? It means that we need to ignore the first sentence! We can't use it in evaluating the gap in the reasoning.

Hope that helps!

[LSAT-Chang]

Aha, now I remember why I didn't diagram the first sentence. I also looked into that phrase "for that reason alone" so I completely ignored the first part! =)

[noah]

And, I'll join the party here by adding that (E) is NOT a repetition of the first sentence since the first sentence is about human intelligence, while (E) is about intelligence in general.

[carly.applebaum]

General question:
for necessary assumption questions like this, is it fair to say that i should be cautious of conditional logic answers? it seems like those are never correct especially because its hard to negate them in order to test them against the stimulus's argument.

maybe i'm making to deep of an inference, but just wanted to check!

thanks!!

[noah]

General question:
for necessary assumption questions like this, is it fair to say that i should be cautious of conditional logic answers? it seems like those are never correct especially because its hard to negate them in order to test them against the stimulus's argument.

maybe i'm making to deep of an inference, but just wanted to check!

thanks!!

Good question.

I don't think that idea will help you. The correct answer for this is a conditional statement.

[GabrielaL935]

I do have a question that is unrelated to the answer itself. I uses the Cambridge bundle and this question is classified as a Necessary Assumption question. I understand ppl who did this because there is a "depends" in the stem, but could it also be viewed as a sufficient assumption? Cause E looks like a sufficient assumption to me.

[BarryM800]

I disagree with the rationale to eliminate (C): "this answer choice talks about 'identifying its emotions,' whereas the argument is about 'having emotions.' You can identify something but not have it -- I thought this was a greater leap than 'display intelligence' and 'being intelligent,' since if you are displaying intelligence, then you clearly have the intelligence that is being displayed inside of you." But (C) states "someone or something is intelligent only if it can identify ITS emotions." Since identifying its own emotions necessities that it has emotions to identify in the first place. The above rationale is not valid. In addition, (C) starts with "someone or something," which includes the first sentence about human and applies to "computer" at issue here. Thus, (C) and (E) seem equivalent to me. Any other ways to differentiate these two answer choices and eliminate (C)? Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

I disagree with the rationale to eliminate (C): "this answer choice talks about 'identifying its emotions,' whereas the argument is about 'having emotions.' You can identify something but not have it -- I thought this was a greater leap than 'display intelligence' and 'being intelligent,' since if you are displaying intelligence, then you clearly have the intelligence that is being displayed inside of you." But (C) states "someone or something is intelligent only if it can identify ITS emotions." Since identifying its own emotions necessities that it has emotions to identify in the first place. The above rationale is not valid. In addition, (C) starts with "someone or something," which includes the first sentence about human and applies to "computer" at issue here. Thus, (C) and (E) seem equivalent to me. Any other ways to differentiate these two answer choices and eliminate (C)? Thanks!

I agree the easiest way to eliminate (C) is "identify." Identify is not the same as have, so if something can't identify its emotions, it doesn't really matter, cause it could still have them.

(E) negates to "Being intelligent DOES NOT require the capacity to have emotions." If intelligence doesn't require the capacity (ie, the ability to have) emotions, the argument is destroyed.