Q17 - A group of mountain climbers

[dan]

17. (A)
Question type: Identify a Flaw
The flaw in this argument is that author incorrectly assumes that, since altitude impacted speech and other functions, speech and other functions must be controlled by the same part of the brain. However, it could be true that different parts of the brain control speech and other functions, and that each of these different parts were impacted by the altitude. Answer choice (A), the correct answer, addresses this issue.

(B) is not relevant to the conclusion.
(C) is attractive, but the author did not necessarily have to overlook this in order to make her point. That is, speech, comprehension, and reason can become impaired at different levels, even if they were controlled by the same part of the brain.
(D) is not relevant to the conclusion.
(E) is not relevant to the conclusion.

[shirando21]

Is C wrong because even if C happens, it still can not prove the area of the brain controlling speech is distinct or not from that controlling other functions?

[gplaya123]

The first thing that popped in my head was this:

"could it be possible that the people who climbed the mountain were already impaired?"

But that's different from C...

However, if C were to say that, could that describe as the "flaw?"

[bbirdwell]

The argument says "AS they climbed past 6,100 meters..." all this stuff happened, and later the argument references the "worsened performances." So it's not possible that they were already impaired -- these issues appeared as they climbed.

On another note, it wouldn't matter anyway. The conclusion is about a certain part of the brain controlling certain functions. Whether or not these impairments already existed in the climbers, or came on with increased altitude, the question would remain: is the same part of the brain controlling those functions or not?

[lsatzen]

Hello All,

I am having a very difficult time determining the out-of-scopeness of an answer choice in Flaw and Weaken questions.

I thought that the correct answer choice to this question required bit of a stretch.
Premise:
(1) Study showed that high altitude affected the climbers performance (speech, judgment, etc).

Conclusion:
(1) The combination of worsened performances disproves that area of brain controlling speech is distinct from controlling other functions.
*Or stated positively: area of brain controlling speech is the same as controlling other functions.

Essentially what is going on in the argument is that from the premise that the climbers speech and judgment were negatively affected, the author concludes that the area of the brain responsible for controlling these functions is the same. The assumption is that just because the same external stimuli produced certain negative affects, the cause or internal mechanism responsible for bringing about the effects must be the same. But this does not necessarily have to be the case. However, I am having a hard time seeing how answer choice A highlights this assumption. When I first read A I thought it strengthened the argument by saying that, oxygen deprivation (single external stimuli) affects the entire brain (meaning a single entity, not divided into sub-parts). In merely using the term entire brain, are the test writers assuming that the test-taker is privy to at least some knowledge of the anatomical structure of the human brain, wherein we know that different parts of the brain are responsible for different actions? With this outside knowledge in mind, answer choice A becomes readily apparent. But, if I were to remain completely self-enclosed in the LSAT world, the answer choice does not seem so obvious.

If this is the case, then I guess I am just having a hard time distinguishing when it is okay and not okay to bring in basic outside information into the LSAT realm.

Any responses would be deeply appreciated.

[maryadkins]

This question reminds me of another one of yours recently and yes, I think you're asking the right question here about how you should change your approach to LSAT questions. You have taken the "nothing outside the LSAT world" rule too far. You can bring to the test outside common sense knowledge if otherwise the arguments and/or answer choices just don't make sense.

In this argument, the conclusion is that the functions are controlled by the same area of the brain. If the way that brains worked is that there aren't different areas controlling different things, this argument wouldn't even make sense. Why would the theory being disputed even exist?

Don't rule out an answer because you refuse to make the most basic level of inferences, when, by choosing not to make that inference, you end up with a nonsensical argument. Arguments in LR have gaps, but they aren't absurd!

[DPCTE4325]

Curious Fact: why did the climbers upon surpassing 6,100 meters slur words, take longer to understand simple sentences, and demonstrate poor judgment?

Author’s Story: Area of Brain controlling speech was affected by lack of oxygen & this area also controls all other functions... thus it's why other functions deteriorated.

Our task should be to introduce an alternate explanation?

A says “no Author, it’s not that the part of the brain controlling speech controls all other functions; rather, it’s that oxygen deprivation affected the ENTIRE brain and THAT’s why the climbers slurred words, took longer to understand simple sentences, and demonstrated poor judgment.”

I found E to be sorta attractive but I think you would have to assume too much for it to provide an alternate explanation?

Could Patrick from MP verify whether my approach is solid?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, that looks great!

The conclusion is an annoying Author's Story to untangle, because you have to first clean up the language of "we have disproven X", ie. "X is not true", and then hear the causal interpretation from there (which you did).

We could technically think to ourselves, the correct answer will either
- give us a different way to explain why the climbers experienced this variety of symptoms
or
- undermine the plausibility that the speech region of the brain controls other functions

But if you were thinking, "On Flaw, they're almost always just going to point out the existence of alternative explanations", you'd be correct.

I think (E) would be tough as an alternative explanation no matter what since it only refers to "many of the climbers", but the adverse effects of altitude seemed to effect "all the climbers".