Q15 - Psychologists recently conducted a study

[shirando21]

This is a necessary assumption question, but isn't D like an answer to a sufficient assumption or principle justify question?

Why can't B be correct?

[rinagoldfield]

You’re on to something with (D), Shirando21. This answer choice does offer a sufficient assumption. It also offers a necessary one. It’s the rare necessary and sufficient assumption! If we negate this answer choice ("if there is a behavior common to people of widely disparate cultures, then there is probably NOT a genetic predisposition to that behavior") then the argument falls apart.

(B) is not necessary. We can negate this answer choice to say "one’s emotional disposition IS influenced by one’s culture." An emotional disposition is a person’s tendency toward certain emotional states. For example, I might be emotionally disposed toward melancholy, while Sarah might be emotionally disposed toward joy. But the argument concerns identifying emotions, not feeling them. Whether or not emotional dispositions are culturally influenced is irrelevant.

[ECMH05]

I thought the same thing as OP and am having trouble with necessary assumption answer choices that appear to be sufficient assumption answers. Is there a method to know when a sufficient AC is correct for a necessary assumption question? I remember encountering a problem that had both a nec/suf AC for nec assumption question.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Great question ECMH05 - the relationship between necessary and sufficient assumptions can be a difficult one to wrap your brain around!

Let's break this question down from the top. Since we're dealing with a Necessary Assumption question, we know we've got to start with the core.

Study: people from disparate
cultures agree that certain facial ========> Genetic predisposition!
expressions represent certain emotions

The argument leaps from people from different cultures agreeing on something to the conclusion that it must be genetic. We should be immediately skeptical - couldn't there be other ways everyone could agree that don't require genetics?

Let's keep our eyes on the prize, and stay focused on what our task is: looking for a necessary assumption. We don't care whether answer choices are sufficient assumptions! Whether they are or aren't doesn't tell us anything about whether the answer is a necessary assumption.

The link in (D) between an element in the premise (shared behavior across cultures) and one in the conclusion (genetic predisposition) gives us the first hint that this could be the winner. Let's negate it to see if it's really necessary. As Rina pointed out above, the negation gives us: "if there is a behavior common to people of widely disparate cultures, then there is probably NOT a genetic predisposition to that behavior". This blows our conclusion up into tiny pieces! It would be totally foolish to claim it was genetic if that negation were true. This is correct!

The Unnecessary
(A) This answer choice focuses on the subjects of the photos instead of those who are agreeing about them. So, everyone in the study agreed that Bob in Photo #1 looked angry. Whether Bob was actually angry has nothing to do with our conclusion! If we negate this, then everyone agreed (incorrectly), but that agreement could totally still be a genetic thing.

(B) Like (A), this answer is focused on the subject of the photos, rather than the people agreeing about them. It says that Bob's anger was not influenced by his culture. Okay, so what if it was? That doesn't hurt the claim that other people's agreement about his looking angry is genetic.

(C) This actually seems to hurt the argument, rather than be necessary for it. This suggests that it's possible this shared behavior (agreement on the emotions) might still be culturally influenced. If that were true, it would undercut the conclusion that it's genetic! We definitely don't need this!

(E) Once again this answer choice focuses on something about the subjects of the photographs. Our core is about those people who are agreeing about the photographs, not those who are photographed! If the subjects were all from the same culture, that doesn't do any damage to the conclusion that the shared agreement is genetic.

Notice that none of this breakdown focused at all on whether any answer choice was a sufficient assumption. Why? Because that's not our task. A correct answer on a Necessary Assumption question might be sufficient, and it might not be! It doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is whether or not it is necessary.

Don't get bogged down evaluating the sufficiency of assumptions when that isn't going to help you do the job of finding the necessary assumption!

Please let me know if this completely answered your question!

[547494985]

Great question ECMH05 - the relationship between necessary and sufficient assumptions can be a difficult one to wrap your brain around!

Let's break this question down from the top. Since we're dealing with a Necessary Assumption question, we know we've got to start with the core.

Study: people from disparate
cultures agree that certain facial ========> Genetic predisposition!
expressions represent certain emotions

The argument leaps from people from different cultures agreeing on something to the conclusion that it must be genetic. We should be immediately skeptical - couldn't there be other ways everyone could agree that don't require genetics?

Let's keep our eyes on the prize, and stay focused on what our task is: looking for a necessary assumption. We don't care whether answer choices are sufficient assumptions! Whether they are or aren't doesn't tell us anything about whether the answer is a necessary assumption.

The link in (D) between an element in the premise (shared behavior across cultures) and one in the conclusion (genetic predisposition) gives us the first hint that this could be the winner. Let's negate it to see if it's really necessary. As Rina pointed out above, the negation gives us: "if there is a behavior common to people of widely disparate cultures, then there is probably NOT a genetic predisposition to that behavior". This blows our conclusion up into tiny pieces! It would be totally foolish to claim it was genetic if that negation were true. This is correct!

The Unnecessary
(A) This answer choice focuses on the subjects of the photos instead of those who are agreeing about them. So, everyone in the study agreed that Bob in Photo #1 looked angry. Whether Bob was actually angry has nothing to do with our conclusion! If we negate this, then everyone agreed (incorrectly), but that agreement could totally still be a genetic thing.

(B) Like (A), this answer is focused on the subject of the photos, rather than the people agreeing about them. It says that Bob's anger was not influenced by his culture. Okay, so what if it was? That doesn't hurt the claim that other people's agreement about his looking angry is genetic.

(C) This actually seems to hurt the argument, rather than be necessary for it. This suggests that it's possible this shared behavior (agreement on the emotions) might still be culturally influenced. If that were true, it would undercut the conclusion that it's genetic! We definitely don't need this!

(E) Once again this answer choice focuses on something about the subjects of the photographs. Our core is about those people who are agreeing about the photographs, not those who are photographed! If the subjects were all from the same culture, that doesn't do any damage to the conclusion that the shared agreement is genetic.

Notice that none of this breakdown focused at all on whether any answer choice was a sufficient assumption. Why? Because that's not our task. A correct answer on a Necessary Assumption question might be sufficient, and it might not be! It doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is whether or not it is necessary.

Don't get bogged down evaluating the sufficiency of assumptions when that isn't going to help you do the job of finding the necessary assumption!

Please let me know if this completely answered your question!

You’re on to something with (D), Shirando21. This answer choice does offer a sufficient assumption. It also offers a necessary one. It’s the rare necessary and sufficient assumption! If we negate this answer choice ("if there is a behavior common to people of widely disparate cultures, then there is probably NOT a genetic predisposition to that behavior") then the argument falls apart.

(B) is not necessary. We can negate this answer choice to say "one’s emotional disposition IS influenced by one’s culture." An emotional disposition is a person’s tendency toward certain emotional states. For example, I might be emotionally disposed toward melancholy, while Sarah might be emotionally disposed toward joy. But the argument concerns identifying emotions, not feeling them. Whether or not emotional dispositions are culturally influenced is irrelevant.

Hi， Everyone, nice talk. I have one question concerning D. All of you said that the negation of D is that there is probably not a genetic predisposition to that behavior. I am a little confused, I thought D is saying we have a possibility in which there is a predisposition to the behavior. So I think the negation of D is that "there cannot be a genetic predisposition to that behavior." Not "probably not". Isn't the negation of possibility "impossibility"? Can anyone please explain? Also, some of you said D is both sufficient and necessary. But I cannot see why D is sufficient. The Conclusion of the argument is a fact, while D talks about possibility. How can a possibility justify a fact? Can anyone help me? I am confused here.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, 547494985!

You are completely correct that the negation of a mere possibility would be to say that that thing isn't possible. However, that's not what (D) gives us!

Instead, (D) tells us that a certain thing is probable. That's a much stronger statement to make than just that something is possible! So, to negate it we don't have to go quite so far as to say that genetic predisposition is impossible. We only need to say that it's not probable. Both of these negations would destroy the argument, so making this mistake would still net you the right answer, but it's good to notice why the negation of (D) is a bit softer than you might have thought.

As for whether (D) is truly sufficient, you're right that it does not actually get us all the way to the conclusion. The conclusion is a definitive claim, while (D) merely gives us that that result is probably the case, not necessarily a sure thing.

Great job noticing that!

[rsarcone]

I picked (D) because to me it was the best choice of a weak field of answers; I am really struggling to see how it is necessary. As others have said, negating it says that there is "probably not" a genetic predisposition to a behavior common to people of widely disparate cultures.

How is "probably not" strong enough to make this a necessary assumption--just because something "probably" is not the case, it still could be the case, right?

[rinagoldfield]

That negated choice does leave a little window of possibility, rsarcone. Good eye. However, it still makes the author’s logic bad. Consider this analogy:

Jenny is eating ice cream
-->
Jenny is happy

The assumption is that ice cream makes Jenny happy.

Let’s say we had a choice like “Ice cream probably makes Jenny happy.” That gets us most of the way there to ice cream always making her happy. The negated version, “ice cream probably does not make Jenny happy,” if plugged into the argument, means the conclusion is really weak.

Saying something is likely the case is a necessary step along the way to that thing always being the case.

[erikwoodward10]

I'm not buying into the explanation. The very definition of a NA is that it is an assumption required to ensure the validity of the conclusion--this is the very justification for the logical negation technique. But if we negate the answer choice ("behaviors common across cultures probably aren’t genetically predisposed"), it doesn't destroy the argument. It can't be a NA because there is just a bit of wiggle room between the negated answer choice and the conclusion (again, probably not doesn't match the level of certainty of the conclusion).

Does this weaken? Absolutely. But unless the definition of a NA has changed I don't agree that this can in anyway be a NA.

I try not to complain about LSAC writing bad questions, but I really think that this one should have been thrown out.

[andrewgong01]

If B had instead said "One's ability to tell emotion is not influenced by one's culture", is that too strong to be a NA because we 100% ruled out culture in that case because it could still be the case that it is DNAs that influence it but with a little bit of culture? I am not sure how this matches with the conclusion's strength because the conclusion just says they are genetically pre-disposed without making it a weak or strong claim.

I think a factor that made this question hard is that "D" (the correct answer choice) was a bit ambiguous by what it meant "behavior common to people of widely disparate" culture as it does not seem to be the easiest math with identifying the emotions, albeit identifying emotion is , i guess, a beahvior too

[ohthatpatrick]

It's a good question, and I'm not sure of my answer.

I don't think we can interpret the conclusion to mean "ONLY genetic predisposition determines what facial expressions we associate with which basic emotions".

You can have a genetic predisposition to do something that can then be augmented or diminished by cultural pressures. (Think about males' genetic predisposition to mate as much as possible .... that predisposition is augmented in Vegas and diminished in Vatican City).

So if we say, "Hey, author, culture can influence the way you interpret emotions", she would probably say:
- I never said it didn't
and
- That can't be why people's answers lined up in THIS study, since these people came from widely disparate cultures

[TillyS471]

Really can not wrap my head around this question.
The logical Opposite of a conditional, If A-> B is that If A , B may or may not happen.

in this case, If there is a behavior common to people of widely disparate cultures, then We DON"T KNOW.. no conclusion can be drawn here.
From this point of view, I can see how D weakens the Argument after negation test. destroy ? may be a bit of stretch however compare to everything else, this is probably the best answer.

On a second thought. When we DON't NEGATE D, dont use the negation test, I can sorta see why D is a required assumption.
To go from EVERYONE identified the same emotion. (dont know if they correctly did so that is irrelevant) given the evidence, they are ALL FROM DISPARATE CULTURES -> this proves that people are genetically predisposed to ........ (wahtever is here))

you kinda do need to assume that part A proves, part B , that it is at least possible that the link is there ..
that If theres a behavior . any behavior common to people of widely disparate culture, it is probable a genetic predisposition could be the reason.
AS THIS IS THE UNDERLYING theory/principle of this study. IF you do not assume, this is at least probable... then HOW did you make the jump from A to B in that specific direction.

[JinZ551]

let me give my 2 cents here

we should bear in mind the conclusion is about whether people have a genetic predisposition to link facial expression with basic emotion.

A. we don't care about the accuracy of people's answer in the study. even if everyone in the study wrongly link a happy face with sad emotion, it does not hurt the argument

B. we don't care about people's emotional disposition, what we care is people's ability to link facial expression with basic emotion.

c. even if it is culturally influenced, it doesn't rule out the possibility of genetic predisposition at the same time.

d. correct, as mentioned in the posts above

E. even if the face in the photographs all comes from the same culture, the conclusion still stands.

[Laura Damone]

Nice work, JinZ!

[BarryM800]

This is yet another necessary assumption question, where the correct answer (D) contains a "most" statement - "probably." Can any expert elaborate why in this argument a "most" statement is necessary, as opposed to a "some" statement? Actually, I eliminated (D) because of the strong wording of "most."

While using the negation test, I respectfully disagree with previous posts' negation of "(D) ... there is probably a genetic predisposition" as "there is probably not a genetic predisposition." Negation of a statement should be contradicting the statement in the minimal/slightest way. Since "most" statement indicates a 51% chance, negation of a "most" statement should be a 50% chance - dropping only 1%. Thus, negation of (D) should be "half of the time it is a genetic predisposition and half of the time it's not." And I just can't figure out how that will destroy the argument, since there is still a 50% chance that the conclusion is true, i.e., there is a genetic predisposition.

Lastly, I found the word "behavior" troubling. Note this word was not used in the stimulus, but only in answer choices, specifically (C) and (D). There could only be two possible referents in the stimulus for "behavior." The first possibility, "behavior" refers to the person depicted in the photographs expressing one of five basic human emotions, but the qualifier "people from widely disparate cultures" in (C) and (D) precludes such an interpretation. The other, "behavior" refers to the people in the study identifying the emotion being expressed in each photograph. But what does it even mean "behavior common to people of widely disparate cultures"? They all used their index finger to point, as opposed to using their nose? I thought it's not much of the behavior itself, i.e., how they identified, but the fact that the result was consistent among the subjects, which is not really a "behavior/action" per se. Thanks!

[Laura Damone]

An important skill to build when going for an elite LSAT score is the ability to select the best answer from among 5 imperfect ones. This question, like the other NA question you flagged with "tends" in the correct answer, tests this skill.

Regarding the negation of a "most" statement, you are technically correct: Most = more than 50%, so the negation of most = 50% or less. However, I've never seen that make or break an answer and I routinely advise my students to negate "most are" as "most aren't" and "probably will" to "probably won't." I'm nothing if not a stickler, but in my experience, this is more often a path to the correct answer than it is a hinderance. In the case of this argument, you point out that the negation of (D) would still leave open a 50% possibility of the conclusion being true. Remember, the idea behind the negation test is not to make it impossible for the conclusion to be true: it's to destroy the logic of the argument. And I think you can argue that limiting the conclusion to a 50% probability has destroyed the logic of the argument because the conclusion is no more likely to be true based on the premises than it is on a coin flip. I don't love this reasoning, but it's the best I've got. Such is the nature of the imperfect-but-correct answer.


And regarding the term "behavior," it's used twice in (D) and it's the second usage that clarifies the intended referent to me. The "genetic predisposition to [the] behavior" phrase has a match in the conclusion: "genetically predisposed to associate certain facial expressions with certain basic emotions." From this, I infer that the behavior referenced in (D) is the association of the expression with the emotion. To double check, I look at the first usage in (D): "a behavior common to people of widely disparate cultures." Is it accurate to say that this behavior was common to people from widely disparate cultures? Yes. If everyone identified the same emotion from each photograph, the behavior of association was the same.

I think the bigger takeaway for you, Barry, is to recognize when a Nec Assum answer looks correct but has a degree that slightly exceeds your prediction/comfort level. It's OK to eliminate these answers on a first pass, but if nothing else looks right, they should be the first choice you take out of the trash can. If you take the LR section with highlighter in hand (digitally speaking), a quick highlight of the suspicious degree word before eliminating can serve as a reminder that the answer deserves a second look if all else fails. And if you prefer not to eliminate until you're 100% certain it's wrong, you can use the highlighter to mark it as "probably wrong because of this suspicious word" while you defer final judgement.

Hope this helps!