Q15 - Humans are supposedly rational

[ohthatpatrick]

Here's a complete synopsis:

Prem(s):
Rational means "having a capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior"
+
Humans knowingly pollute the air and deplete the soil

Conc:
Humans aren't rational after all

If you read this and already see any logical gap or room for objection, great. If not, organize your thinking around the "anti-conclusion". The author has NOT proven that humans aren't rational (or else they couldn't ask us this question). There has to still be some way to argue that humans ARE rational.

So, knowing that humans knowingly pollute the air and deplete the soil, how could we still argue that they DO have a capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior?

Hopefully, phrased like this, you start to realize that all we have to do to disagree with the author is to show humans have a CAPACITY for being rational, not that we're 100% rational all the time.

(A) Internal contradictions are extremely rare. Does "having a capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior" contradict itself?

(That would be like if we said, "Thinking, by definition, is NOT well-considered, so 'well-considered thinking' is a contradiction".

(B) Does this author need to assume that humans are aware of their irrationality. This is somewhat tempting because the author said that humans "knowingly" pollute, and the author was using this pollution as an example of irrational behavior. However, it's possible that humans only know they're polluting but don't know they're being irrational.

Since "takes for granted" just means "Necessary Assumption", let's apply the negation test to (B). If humans are UN-aware of their irrationality, does that crush the argument? If humans are unaware of their rationality, does that help us make the counterargument that "humans ARE rational after all"? No, whether they're aware or not, they would still be irrational. Since the negation of this has no effect on the conclusion, we can tell the author doesn't have to assume this.

(C) does the author need to show us that animals ALSO pollute the air and deplete the soil? No, that's not our logical problem with this argument. You wouldn't be able to make a counterargument that goes, "Since irrational animals DON'T pollute the air and deplete the soil, whereas humans DO, then humans are rational."

(D) does the author need to assume that humans are no worse than other animals? He says it's absurd to regard them as "superior", so couldn't he easily believe that they ARE worse?

Again, bust out the negation test, if in doubt on these Necessary Assumption answers. What if humans ARE worse than other animals? Does that hurt the author's argument/conclusion? No, it seems to just reinforce it.

(E) would it weaken the author's argument if we pointed out that you can possess a capacity without displaying it in a given activity?

What I already like about (E) is that it's giving me a way to argue the anti-conclusion, that humans DO possess a capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior.

This answer is essentially giving us the objection of, "Sure, humans don't display well-considered thinking and behavior when it comes to the activities of polluting/depleting, but maybe they still possess the capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior in other activities" (like, say ... Science, or taking the LSAT).

Hope this helps.


#officialexplanation

[celene0007]

When I encountered this problem, I did not see the flaw, and I answered A. Now that I am reviewing it, I think the flaw is that just because humans do not display rationality in one activity (polluting the world's resources), it does not mean that they are irrational. It is extreme to make this jump just based on one instance.

Would this be correct?

[ajc428]

I agree with you, since failing in one instance to act, in the authors opinion, rationally, doesn't mean we aren't rational at all.

The argument says that humans are "supposedly rational" -- that they have a capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior, but that they knowingly pollute the world and use bad farming practices (i.e. act irrationally).

So, humans are NOT rational after all.

Seems like a big jump to me, too, to go from knowingly polluting the world/acting irrationally to "NOT being rational after all."

Like E says, the argument fails to recognize that humans may possess a capacity for well-considered thinking without displaying it in a given activity.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice discussion guys! You've nailed it.

[gmatalongthewatchtower]

I am having trouble with this question. I tend to miss a majority of "flaw" questions. Can you please explain why C is incorrect? Also, what's the issue with "supposedly" ? I didn't quite get it.

Thanks

[chiach2]

Can someone please briefly describe why B is wrong?

[shirando21]

I picked E, the right answer.

but I am not sure why B is wrong, it is tempting to me.

I feel like the argument core is not talking about the awareness of irrationality, not sure if this is the reason.

Can anyone take a look?

[guolan27]

Can someone please briefly describe why B is wrong?

Here is what I think:

The author states that humans "knowingly" perform certain acts in the text and uses that premise to support the conclusion that humans are not rational. I eliminated answer choice (B) because of that.

Answer choice (E) completely fills in the gap about human capacity.

Premise: humans have the capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior BUT do not utilize or display this capacity in the particular instances stated in the stimulus.

Conclusion: Humans are not rational (they do not have the capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior).

Just because humans fail to show a certain capacity in a FEW instances does not mean that they do not have the ability to display the capacity at all.

Hope this helped some.

[shirando21]

Thanks. good point.

[cyt5015]

I approached this question from a slightly different perspective.
Premise:
(1) Humans are rational-->have a capacity for well-consider thinking and behavior
(2) Humans display bad behavior.
Conclusion: Humans are irrational.
It seems to me that author equals "having a capacity for being good" with "displaying good".
Answer E states that flaw.

[oyxy1111]

Hi,

I have some doubts on answer(B). If we change it to "takes for granted that humans are aware that they pollute the environment", would it be a good answer?
When I was reading the stimulus, the first thought came to me is that maybe humans do this without any knowledge, just like we consume a certain industrial product while we're ignorant about whether the company done something bad for the environment to make it.