Q15 - Human beings have cognitive faculties

[rdown2b]

I have no idea why the answer is C. At the same time I do not know what other answers would work. I dont know where to start...

[demetri.blaisdell]

Perhaps the problem here is that there was a typo in your answer key. If that’s not the case, see the explanation below:

The core of this argument contains some big words but is deceptively simple.

People have superior cognitive functions → They can only be made happy by things that involve gratification of these cognitive functions

I imagine that if you think about it, you will find this argument a little hard to believe. Just because people are smarter than animals does not mean that certain more animalistic pleasures don’t make us happy (I won’t give examples"”use your imagination). (B) gives us PG wording for exactly what we’re anticipating: many people who know both intellectual stimulation (studying for the LSAT, for example) and physical pleasures (again, use your imagination) seem to enjoy the physical pleasures more (although as an LSAT instructor, I can’t understand why).

(A) tries to attack the premise that we have cognitive faculties superior to other animals. But it doesn’t say whether our faculties are better. More importantly, we’re not looking for an answer choice that attacks the premise. We’re focused on the connection between the premise and the conclusion.

(C) is out of scope. Do classical music or popular music gratify cognitive faculties? Does one gratify more than the other? We don’t know so (C) does not weaken our argument.

(D) is hoping that we’ll read something extra in to the answer choice. We don’t have any information on what makes serious athletes happy. Is it through gratifying their cognitive faculties? We’re not sure, so this does not weaken our argument.

(E) again misses the argument. The argument tells us what makes us happy, not what we love. It might be safe to say that food does not gratify our cognitive faculties, but (E) doesn’t tell us that gourmet food makes these athletes happy"”just that they love it.

I hope this clears up your confusion. Let me know if you still have questions.

Demetri

[rsmorale]

Thanks for making an otherwise complicated question entertaining!


I thought E was wrong because gourmet food could be argued to be a gratification of a cognitive faculty. (Think wine tasting...that's not just for physical pleasure) I also thought that the reference to serious athletes was a trick, because altheticism conflates physical and cognitive faculties (there's no proof that being a serious athlete is purely physical).

[demetri.blaisdell]

LSAT problems can seem a little dry, but you just have to look for the deeper meanings.

Good explanation of the "serious athlete" trick on (E). That's exactly how they are trying to trick us. As for gourmet food gratifying our cognitive faculties, I'm not totally sure I agree with you. Cognitive is about thinking. I like a good glass of wine as much as the next guy, but does it make you think? In either case, there are enough issues with (E) to knock it out so I'm really splitting hairs here.

Demetri

[yarlungtsangpo]

I can't see any trace of such a weakening from answer B. Yes, you can enjoy physical pleasures more. But you can't rule out the the necessity of intellectual stimulation which you enjoy less.

[aradunakhor]

I was thrown off by the conclusion, which is about is an absolute statement: if you've been made happy by something, then that thing must have involved gratification of some cognitive faculties.

However, (B) simply states that some people familiar with both enjoy physical pleasures more than intellectual stimulation. This only seems to only be a relative comparison: the person can enjoy a physical pleasure more than an intellectual stimulation, but that doesn't tell us that the former made him happy. Maybe he was on the whole indifferent to both, with only a slight preference for the former.

I'd like to say that the usual understanding of the word 'enjoy' means to make one happy, but there are two issues. The first is that I'm having difficulty deciding when to split hairs like this -- it certainly feels like there have been plenty of LSAT questions where this was required.

The second issue is that if 'enjoy' does indeed imply that the person was made happy, then why bother with the 'more than comparison'? All we need to know is that a person familiar both with intellectual stimulation and physical pleasure is made happy by physical pleasure: that by itself is enough to show the conclusion is false.

[WaltGrace1983]

I was thrown off by the conclusion, which is about is an absolute statement: if you've been made happy by something, then that thing must have involved gratification of some cognitive faculties.

However, (B) simply states that some people familiar with both enjoy physical pleasures more than intellectual stimulation. This only seems to only be a relative comparison: the person can enjoy a physical pleasure more than an intellectual stimulation, but that doesn't tell us that the former made him happy. Maybe he was on the whole indifferent to both, with only a slight preference for the former.

I think you are absolutely right. The conclusion definitely is an absolute statement and the answer choice definitely is a relative statement. More importantly, the answer choice does not show that physical pleasures made the person happy, you are correct.

However, we must remember that a weakening/strengthening answer choice doesn't have to prove anything or completely make/break the argument. It just has to initiate a shadow of doubt (weaken) or some additional evidence that makes the conclusion more likely (strengthen). With that said, our goal is to not add unnecessary/unreasonable assumptions and I think this is why strengthen/weaken questions are tough. We often have to think about the answer choice in a distinct way to understand how it strengthens or weakens but we cannot go too far. In a way, I think this is what makes strengthen/weaken questions the toughest to master (I have a long way to go myself).

I'd like to say that the usual understanding of the word 'enjoy' means to make one happy, but there are two issues. The first is that I'm having difficulty deciding when to split hairs like this -- it certainly feels like there have been plenty of LSAT questions where this was required.

The second issue is that if 'enjoy' does indeed imply that the person was made happy, then why bother with the 'more than comparison'? All we need to know is that a person familiar both with intellectual stimulation and physical pleasure is made happy by physical pleasure: that by itself is enough to show the conclusion is false.

For the first issue, I think you shouldn't worry too much about splitting hairs in weaken/strengthen questions. Save that for necessary assumption, sufficient assumption, principle, etc.

For the second issue, the more than comparison is absolutely critical. Let's break this argument down.

Humans have superior cognitive functions
→
Once they realize this, (happy → gratification of cognitive functions)

Now let's think about this. Just because humans have superior cognitive functions, does this mean that cognitive functions are necessary for happiness? Not exactly. We want to show that there can be other ways to be happy that don't involve cognitive functions. For example, when I feel down, I love the feeling I get after a run. I feel 100% better. Is that cognitive? Eh, maybe a little but I think most people would argue that it is a physical sensation - some people call it "runner's high." Let's take this example and run with it (ha, no pun intended)

We could look for an answer choice that says something like, "Waltgrace1983 and many others are made happy solely from running."

(A) Don't care about animals. This is just a distraction. We care only about humans.

(B) Hmm... dunno about this one yet

(C) Now we might be able to say that classical music is something cognitive. Many people believe this to be so. However, a few red flags arise with this. Remember the conclusion: we are talking about people familiar with their cognitive faculties. We aren't exactly seeing anything about familiarity with cognition and it seems that by talking about people "who have never experienced classical music" we might be able to even make a stretch and say that they aren't familiar with cognition. Also, what effect does pop music have? This is just so very wishy washy.

(D) I initially thought very hard about this. Maybe the athletes are being happy by their physical pleasures? However, there is just not enough indication that this is true. Just because people who are athletes are correlated with happiness doesn't mean that physical pleasures made them happy! Maybe these athletes go home every night and read a 1,000 page legal textbook. We just don't know. I am very hesitant to actually pick this one.

(E) This is similar. But love of food? Are they happy? We have no idea.

Now let's go back to (B) and think about it alongside our initial prediction of what a good answer might look like. (B) is talking about people familiar with cognition. This is great for us because that is exactly what the conclusion talks about! We need to discuss people familiar, because that is what the conclusion is about: people who are familiar with cognition! Ok let's continue.

So they are familiar with cognition and they enjoy physical pleasures MORE than cognition. Now enjoyment does not exactly mean happiness but we have already discussed this issue and we won't split hairs. Let's move on thinking about the final element of this correct answer.

It is giving us a relative statement. We wanted an absolute right? Well yea, we did. However, a relative statement might actually be even more powerful here. Why? Because not only does this imply that people are made happier by physical pleasures (and thus, they don't exactly need cognition to be happy) but it also puts down cognition just a little bit! (B) is basically saying that, for happiness, physical pleasures trumps cognition.

If we would have said "Many people familiar with both intellectual stimulation and physical pleasures are happy" then how do we know what made them happy?! It could have been either. If we would just said "most people who enjoy physical pleasures are happy," we still wouldn't have known what made them happy!

I know that was a lot of word vomit but hopefully it helps.