Q14 - Over 90 percent of the human

[velvet]

I made a mistake identifying the core. I initially thought the first sentence was background info, and the core went like:

So once we tap into this source of creativity -> Many previously unsolved problems will be solvable

I thought the correct answer (E) was questioning a premise, so crossed it off.

But I think the core goes: first sentence premise -> second sentence conclusion

To avoid this in the future, is it a matter of being more careful of indicator words like "So" when figuring out the core?

[timmydoeslsat]

So is definitely a big indicator word of a conclusion. Doesn't have to be the main conclusion of the argument of course, but a conclusion nonetheless (subsidiary for example).

The core of this argument is really the argument itself. It does not have any superfluous information to comb through. The conclusion is a conditional one, but this question isn't testing any conditional logic.

One way of testing an answer on a flaw question is as follows: If answer choices states, "it presumes, without warrant, that X happens."

You can use the negation technique and see, if in fact, the author does presume that. If he does presume it, it is a flaw.

By using the negation technique on this answer choice:

The argument presumes that the currently unused parts of the brain are not a potential source of tremendous creativity and innovation.

That destroys the conclusion. The author is assuming that the unused part of the brain is a source for it.

[ysabel.jurado]

Could someone explain why D is wrong?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Could someone explain why D is wrong?

This gets back to the argument core. The short answer is that answer choice (D) suggests the argument concludes something that it does not. The argument never inferred that problems will be solved - just that they would be within our ability to solve.

Lets run through this one from the beginning. The argument concludes that problems that today seem insurmountable will be within our ability to solve once we tap into this tremendous source of creativity and innovation. Why? Because over 90 percent of our brain serves no purpose.

This argument assumes that the portion of our brain that is unused will be a source of creativity and innovation - a simple connection between the evidence and the conclusion. This assumption is best described in answer choice (E).

Incorrect Answers
(A) is too strong. The argument does assume in the subsidiary argument that effects of brain damage are at least sometimes discernable but they need not be always or easily discernable.
(B) is too strong and fails to relate the evidence to the conclusion. The argument does conclude that at least some problems might be solved by increased creativity and innovation, but this is not the gap in the argument, this is just an implication of the conclusion. Additionally the author never suggests that we would be able to solve any problem.
(C) expresses the wrong gap in the subsidiary argument. It's not that we don't know what these areas do, it's that people with significant brain damage sometimes have no discernable negative effects.
(D) expresses the wrong gap in the main argument. The argument does not infer that problems will be solved, just that they will be within our ability to solve. Additionally, the argument concludes that the problems will be within our ability to solve, it does not use this as evidence.

[aprilhu33]

Why is it bad that answer choice A is too strong? I mean the question asks for a flaw in the argument and the flaw that was most apparent to me was that how would you know that 90% of the human brain serves no purpose if you cant always tell how discernible much brain damage there is (choice A)? If you don't know that 90% of the human brain serves no purpose, then you cant be sure that that 90% is an untapped source of creativity and innovation.

[amil91]

I crossed A out because I felt it was questioning the premise, and on the LSAT the premise is always correct.

[slimz89]

I was between B,D,E.
I eliminated B because where in the passage did it indicate that the sole reason that problems remain unsolved is only because there is a lack of innovation and creativity. Passage only indicated that it may contribute.
D is out because the passage never said the problems will be solved just that it may be within our reach now
E is a picture perfect answer for an assumption question which basically is the same thing as a flaw. (a claim that is presented without the appropriate logical chain of premises. In other words a skip). In this case how do we know that the untapped brain lobes are a source of creativity and innovation. Maybe they only help you with math.
Hope that helps

[erikwoodward10]

Oh man. What a stupid problem, you really have to pay attention to the details. Here's how I broke it down:

P: Over 90% of the human brain serves no purpose, we know this from the fact that many people with significant brain damage show no discernible adverse effects.
C: So once humans begin to tap into this tremendous source of creativity and innovation, many problems that today seem unsolvable will be within our ability to solve.

Flaw: There are two major flaws. One is that brain damage only produces discernible adverse effects (as opposed to adverse effects that we don’t realize), and the other is that utilizing the so called “no purpose” part of the brain will spur creativity and innovation.

A) “easily” makes this wrong. It doesn’t say that they’re easily detectable, only that they’re discernible.

B) This is really tricky. I initially eliminated it, but on my blind review ultimately chose it. My reasoning was based on the misconception that the stimulus said we could solve these problems, not that they are within our ability to solve. Key difference. Under this flawed understanding of the problem, the stimulus tells us that (C+I-->Solve). This answer choice says (~Solve--> ~ C + ~ I), or, the contrapositive. Which would be correct if ability to solve actually meant solve. Anyway, this is wrong.

No, this answer choice states ( Problem unsolved → lack of creativity ). But the stimulus actually says the opposite in some sense, (creativity → solve problems ). This is a contrapositive, is it correct then?

C) It doesn’t say we don’t know what they do, it just says that when they are affected we don’t have discernible adverse effects. Wrong

D) No, it just says we will have the ability to solve them. Not that we will solve them.

E) I'm not crazy about this answer choice because it equates "serves no purpose" as stated in the stimulus as "unused". But considering that all of the other answer choices are even more clearly wrong, I guess this will work. Is anyone else uncomfortable with this seeming change in scope from serves no purpose to unused?

[Mab6q]

I have a question regarding E. I was hesitant to choose it because I considered whether it really was an assumption, since in the author says "once humans begin to tap into this tremendous source of creativity and innovation." Can you explain to me why we don't take this to be true, as a premise. And if we did, wouldn't that mean the author is not assuming it. I thought assumptions were not usually stated directly in the stimulus.

[tianchentong]

B) This is really tricky. I initially eliminated it, but on my blind review ultimately chose it. My reasoning was based on the misconception that the stimulus said we could solve these problems, not that they are within our ability to solve. Key difference. Under this flawed understanding of the problem, the stimulus tells us that (C+I-->Solve). This answer choice says (~Solve--> ~ C + ~ I), or, the contrapositive. Which would be correct if ability to solve actually meant solve. Anyway, this is wrong.

No, this answer choice states ( Problem unsolved → lack of creativity ). But the stimulus actually says the opposite in some sense, (creativity → solve problems ). This is a contrapositive, is it correct then?[/b]

题干：特称命题particular proposition，lack of creativity→ many problem unsolved
B) ：全称命题universal proposition，creativity → solve any problems

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I have a question regarding E. I was hesitant to choose it because I considered whether it really was an assumption, since in the author says "once humans begin to tap into this tremendous source of creativity and innovation." Can you explain to me why we don't take this to be true, as a premise. And if we did, wouldn't that mean the author is not assuming it. I thought assumptions were not usually stated directly in the stimulus.

Good question Mab6q!

Here's the issue with that though. Think about where the author says, "once humans begin to tap into this tremendous source of creativity and innovation." It's not in the evidence, but in the conclusion. You can see the sentence begin with the word "so," a common conclusion word indicator.

You're right that if it had been given in the evidence, then we'd accept it as true. But since it's given in the conclusion, we question it. And anything stated in the conclusion while not justified in the evidence rests on an assumption.