Q16 - Herpetologist: Some psychologists attribute complex

[deburma]

Hi,

I got the answer choices down to (A) and (D) with confidence, but picked (A) over (D) mainly for its larger application (animals over reptiles), thinking that would be a safer option as an answer. Plus, the wording was more restrictive for (A), and I figured that assumptions tend to be more specific and restrictive than the inferences.

But, the answer is (D), and I am wondering if there is any logic gap that I am missing. It'll be great to get an explanation. Thanks~

[aileenann]

Your thinking was good, but I think there are a few more considerations you should apply to this assumption question and also more generally. First, we need to pay as much attention to the logical structure of an answer choice as we do to the scope of its vocabulary. Did you notice that (A) uses an *only* if construction while (D) uses a more permissive if-then claim? That can have huge ramifications.

Second, when evaluating scope/blandness/level of generality of an answer choice, the first inquiry is not which answer choice is most or least general but rather which one is most or least relevant. Scope considerations are best for eliminating clearly wrong answer choices but cannot always be the final determination when you have it narrowed down to two answer choices.

Here if you examine (D), you will notice that it is basically the contrapositive of the last sentence of the argument. However that last sentence is not framed per se as a conditional statement but effectively worked as such. We need to assume that the conditional statement underlying the claim is true, and that is precisely what (D) does.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to let me know if you have more questions about this one - it's a tough question.

[ebrickm2]

I find that when I run into these questions (mirrored with PT34 S3 Q17) I get stuck. I realize that there is a basis for measurement to determine if an entity possess a characteristic or not on necessary grounds, but when I see something that looks like that, I get distracted.

So i guess this question goes something like:

-capable of making alterations, -complex reasoning.

complex reasoning, capable of making alterations.

Could you contrast this with PT34 S3 Q17 to make the point more clear for me? It is the "Zoologist: Animals can..." question.

Danka!

[geordan]

If evidence was provided that stated that the ability to make Major Alterations in Behavior is always found in animals capable of Complex Reasoning (MAB --> CR), or that the absence of an ability of Complex Reasoning always means the inability to make Major Alterations in Behavior (~CR --> ~MAB) then the conclusion would be supported and choice A would be correct.

However, the evidence qualifies the reptile's inability to make Major Alterations in Behavior by stating that this inability occurs "when they are faced with significant changes in their environment." Consequently, choice A is incorrect because it is too extreme.

[aileenann]

Geordan, I agree with your analysis - well done.

ebrickm, here's my thoughts on PT 34 S 3 Q 17. Therefore we have the case that we know something animals can do but the scientist nonetheless concludes that knowledge about what animals can do does not justify us in coming to some more complex/general conclusion about animals. Moreover, the scientist explains the reason we cannot draw the more complex/general conclusion about animals because of a particular criterion that is not proven. So basically the scientist says that some evidence is true but that it's simply not enough. So then we focus on finding an assumption to show what the connection between the evidence and not enough - or rather the assumed lack of a connection - is.

In contract, this problem shows an example of animals being incapable and draws a conclusion based on that incapacity. So in this case the reasoning is premised on the absence of a trait, so here we'll focus on what that absence means rather than what the presence of a particular trait means.

Does that make sense? If not, perhaps I've misunderstood your question. Please let me know if you've got follow up

[rsmorale]

Super helpful - thanks! I actually thought long and hard about this one and narrowed it down to B and D. B seemed to fit, because I figured that when negated, the conclusion couldn't follow (e.g. If simple-stimulus reponse explanations COULD NOT in principle account for all reptile behaviors, then wouldn't that mean the alternative is the complex reasoning explanation?).

The "sometimes" in D made me very hesitant, although I kept looking at D because it was attractive --no reversed logic, no mistaken negation...it just had a degree issue that I was unsure of.

In hindsight, I should have chosen D because I did in fact view the conclusion as a conditional. And also, w/r/t answer choice B, there is no conclusive evidence that the simple-response explanation and the complex reasoning explanation are the only possibilities.

Nonetheless, thanks for making it more clear.

[shaynfernandez]

I believe the structure in this argument is one of the most predicable patterns on the LSAT LR section.

We can see a tendency in arguments displaying this (abstract structure)
1. (counter-premise) "SOME PSYCHOLOGISTS"
This is often used as a base for a conclusion that the authorn will ultimately disagree with...
(continued) "SOME PSYCHOLOGISTS attribute X to reptiles by claiming ~Y"

2. (supporting premise) "BUT SINCE..."
Another common indicator the author disagrees with some psychologists
(continued) "BUT SINCE experiments show that reptiles are Z...

3. (conclusion) "these animals MUST not be X"

Did you notice the shift? How in the world are we to know that having Z is sufficient to show that we don't have X? Its not it needs an assumptions.

The argument is assuming that ~Z (capability of alterations in behavior) is necessary for X (complex reasoning).

What makes this problem tricky is not the argument, the structure is one we see all the time in LR, and looking at structured reveals this. It's tricky because of the answer choices.

A) is the reverse of what we want in order to protect the authors argument we don't need to know that complex reasoning is necessary for making changes in behavior. We need the opposite.

B) this answer is too much this answer would be SUFFICIENT to reach the conclusion, however it is not necessary for us to reach the conclusion.

C) gives us information that is new and out of scope information that we don't know occurred, this is tempting if we let the argument confuse us.

D) Correct because it gives us the conditions we need it gives us our alteration in behavior as necessary for complex behavior, this ties the argument up and defends against what the psychologists claim.

E) is a very difficult answer if we don't understand the relationship given in the conclusion. E gives us a bi-conditional relationship between complex reasoning and simple stimulus reasoning, as if our only choices are one or the other. However that isn't what we read. Reptiles could have neither of these things we don't know it's one or the other.

In short, most of LR is a repeat structure with different specifics. If you can foresee what will be the argument before it comes you will be better prepared for confusing choices.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice work shaynfernandez!

[ban2110]

Hallo,

Although I was able to get the correct answer because I immediately saw the gap between making major alternations and complex reasoning which lead me to (D). However, as I review this question I realize that I don't really understand option (E), especially as a bi-conditional statement. Can someone please break down how (E) is biconditional?
Thank you!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question, and going back through shaynfernandez's explanation, I see I missed that the first time. I wouldn't call answer choice (E) a biconditional. Instead it's a "not both" statement.

CR --> ~RS

and by contrapositive:

RS --> ~CR

Answer choice (E) excludes the possibility that both factors contribute to the same behavior. But it fails to connect the dots in this argument.

~MAB
--------
~CR

Assumption: ~MAB --> ~CR

(Notation Key: MAB = major alterations in behavior, CR = capable of complex reasoning)

Answer choice (D) bridges this gap, but states the assumption in contrapositive form.

Incorrect Answers
(A) negates the assumption: MAB --> CR
(B) is out of scope. We care about reptiles being unable to make major alterations in their behavior--that's the argument's premise.
(C) is out of scope. There is no need for assuming a difference between the way the behavior appears in the field vs. in the lab.
(E) is irrelevant, since we know that responses to stimuli cannot account for reptile behavior. This answer would suggest that if responses to stimuli did account, then it couldn't be explained by complex reasoning. However, the reptile behavior is not explained by simple responses to stimuli.

Thanks for bumping this one on the discussion list!

[uhdang]

Hi, I have a question regarding B) and E)

For B), my reasoning was different from the posts, so I wanted to check if I am making a wrong turn in reasoning.

If we assume B), while every behavior SHOULD BE explained in simple stimulus-response in principle, but since some behaviors still can't be explained, B) strengthens the first argument of "some psychologists", increasing the possibility of complex reasoning present in reptiles. And I thought that this strengthened first argument would weaken the conclusion of the passage.

Could you check if this is okay for reasoning?

And for E)...

Besides providing premises to reach to the conclusion, the right answer choice for necessary assumption questions could be eliminating assertion that could undermine the conclusion.

I may be stretching E) too far, but I thought E) was eliminating, thereby strengthening the conclusion, a possible scenario where complex reasoning has in fact acted on reptiles' behavior but stimulus-response, which also acted, has prevented reptiles from altering their behaviors. (Combination of both complex reasoning and stimulus-response) This way, there in fact WAS complex reasoning from reptiles' parts, but experiments weren't able to witness this because of the simultaneous response of stimulus-response.

Since this is science-related topic, so I might have expanded my imagination too far, but I thought this scenario could be a possibility and E) is eliminating this scenario, thereby supporting the conclusion: reptiles must be incapable of complex reasoning.

Could you point out where I am wrong?

Thank you.

[maryadkins]

I think you're getting stuck in the weeds here and it's much simpler to go back to your task on a necessary assumption question, which you named: negate the answer choice and see if it destroys the argument.

Negating (B) would be to say that simple stimulus-response explanations CANNOT account for all reptile behaviors. What does that do to the argument? Well, maybe supports it? But kind of nothing? I am not sure if this is what you were getting at in your post. But if it is, then you're right: if negating an answer choice makes the argument BETTER it is not the answer.

Negating (E) would be to say that complex reasoning and responses to stimuli CAN both contribute to the same behavior. Instead of getting caught up in all the ways this might affect the argument, go straight to the question that matters—does it destroy it? No. Because we have no clue how this even relates. What behaviors? Which ones? Was that happening here? Maybe, maybe not. And regardless, this argument is focused on a lack of ALTERATIONS in behavior and how this reflects complex reasoning or not. In short, (E) misses that gap altogether. Another way of putting it is that (E) doesn't have to be true for the argument to hold—negating it has unknown effects on the argument itself.

[uhdang]

Thank you for the reply!

For B), I think I figured out my reasoning error. While we are looking for the assumption to reach the CONCLUSION, I was applying this assumption to the "background information." Even if this assumption would affect "background information" and eventually affect the conclusion in some way, it would NOT be NECESSARY because the effect would not be within the GAP.

Once I tried to reason it by applying B) into the gap while negating it, it did become clear. "Simple stimulus-response explanations canNOT account for all reptile behaviors" only strengthens the possibility of complex reasoning present in reptiles, and therefore this destroys the conclusion.

For E), as you said, the argument is concerned about the scope of "making alternations in behavior - complex reasoning", but E) is adding an unrelated element ("response to stimuli") and talks about a different scope ("contribution to the SAME behavior, which isn't necessarily the case in altering behaviors). So E) is out of scope.

Thank you.