Q16 - Psychologist: The obligation to express

[ohthatpatrick]

This a Describe the Role question.

We should first read and understand the argument core, and then we'll ask ourselves whether the claim in question is a conclusion, premise, subsidiary conclusion, opposing point, or background fact.

After a first read, it's a little tricky to figure out what the Main Conclusion is.

On one hand, it felt like the first sentence could be the conclusion, since everything that follows it seems designed to support the idea that gratitude can't be expressed anonymously.

On the other hand, we have a "THUS" to begin the final sentence. Language such as "thus/therefore/hence/so" always indicates a conclusion, but it doesn't necessarily indicate the main conclusion.

Remember, some arguments have subsidiary/intermediate conclusions: ideas that have a supporting premise but ultimately are there support an even bigger claim.

Main Conclusion and Describe the Role questions are notorious for NOT putting the main conclusion as the last sentence and NOT making it obvious by using a term like "thus/therefore/hence/so".

(The main task in Main Conclusion and Describe the Role is to find the conclusion, so LSAT needs to make that task trickier than usual)

Does the 1st sentence support the 3rd, or does the 3rd sentence support the 1st?

We can use the Therefore Test to see which ordering makes more sense.

You shouldn't express gratitude anonymously.
THEREFORE
The social function of reinforcing good behavior only works if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude.

or

The social function of reinforcing good behavior only works if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude.
THEREFORE
You shouldn't express gratitude anonymously.

The second ordering is much more logical. This means that the 3rd sentence is designed to support the 1st sentence.

Our whole argument breaks down like this:

MAIN CONC:
Obligation to express gratitude can't be satisfied anonymously.
(why?)
SUBSIDIARY/INTERMEDIATE CONC:
[because] The social function of reinforcing good behavior only works if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude.
(why?)
PREMISE:
[because] Human psych is still driven mainly by personal interaction.

Now that we've deconstructed the argument, we know the claim the question asks about (the 1st sentence) is our Main Conclusion. So we can scan the answers looking for applicable wording.

(E) is the correct answer.

===other answers===
(A) The 1st sentence is not used to support the main conclusion. It is the main conclusion. (The 1st sentence is also not an "illustration", which would be more like a specific example or application of a general rule)

(B) The 1st sentence was not defending against an objection. There is no objection in the argument.

(C) This describes the role of the 2nd sentence, which was a premise used to support the intermediate conclusion, which was used to support the main conclusion.

(D) The 1st sentence speaks of no social benefit. This answer is trying to make it seem like the 1st sentence was used to support the 3rd sentence (but we already analyzed that possibility and judged that the 3rd was used to support the 1st).

[hyojin.j]

Hi Patrick,

Just wanted to clarify your comments below.
You wrote:

"The social function of reinforcing good behavior only works if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude.
THEREFORE
You shouldn't express gratitude anonymously."

To me, that conditional statement is interpreted as
If the benefactor --> the social function - works.

BUT in the sti,
"Thus, the important social function of positively reinforcing those behaviors that have beneficial consequences for others can be served only if the benefactor knows the source of the gratitude."
which is,
If the important social function served --> the benefactor know

I think I got confused because you wrote it as "behavior only works if", NOT "behavior works only if"??

Are those two are the same?
(at first, I thought they are the same, but as I keep reading over and over I'm just confused now.)

Thanks in advance!

[deedubbew]

The last sentence seems to be a bigger claim to me, so it still looks like the ultimate conclusion to me. I considered the possibility that the first sentence is the main conclusion with the first sentence as the intermediary conclusion; but it still seemed more logical that the first and second sentences were the premises to the third sentence. If both sentences are taken to be true, then the third sentence arrives as the logical conclusion.

[Antnat]

I understand that passage is structured as the following;
Sentence 1: Conclusion B
Sentence 2: Premise A
Sentence 3: Reasoning A--> B.

Could it be possible, in other scenarios, that the reasoning could actually serve as a conclusion?

[DavidM254]

Hi Patrick,

Just wanted to clarify your comments below.
You wrote:

"The social function of reinforcing good behavior only works if the benefactor knows the source of gratitude.
THEREFORE
You shouldn't express gratitude anonymously."

To me, that conditional statement is interpreted as
If the benefactor --> the social function - works.

BUT in the sti,
"Thus, the important social function of positively reinforcing those behaviors that have beneficial consequences for others can be served only if the benefactor knows the source of the gratitude."
which is,
If the important social function served --> the benefactor know

I think I got confused because you wrote it as "behavior only works if", NOT "behavior works only if"??

Are those two are the same?
(at first, I thought they are the same, but as I keep reading over and over I'm just confused now.)

Thanks in advance!

Hi hyojin.j,

I wish I had seen the question 6 years earlier when you asked, but maybe it’ll help someone else.

I’m sure manhattan prep addresses it, but I learned from the PowerScore logical reasoning bible that there is a distinction between “if” and “only if” in conditional statements. By itself, “if” signifies the sufficient condition, but “only if” signifies the necessary (usually the statement applied directly after it).

You can think of it this way; if something happens *only if* a certain action happens, that cause is then *necessary* for the causal relationship.

Example: A water balloon will pop *only if* it is overfilled. This then becomes:

*If* a water balloon pops -> it was *only if* it was overfilled

[smiller]

By itself, “if” signifies the sufficient condition, but “only if” signifies the necessary (usually the statement applied directly after it).

That's correct. This is how you'll see "only if" explained in our Manhattan Prep Strategy Guides and other resources.

Some people find it helpful to substitute the word, "then" for the phrase, "only if." So your example becomes, "If a water balloon pops then it is overfilled."

When Patrick used the phrase "only works if" in his explanation, it means the same as "works only if." So his explanation does match the stimulus.