Q17 - Human beings can exhibit

[noah]

17. (A)
Question type: Assumption
This question's argument basically says that even though humans can seem to behave in a complex manner and with a goal, they’re not always consciously aware of what they’re doing. Therefore, even if we can say that an animal is intelligent, we can’t say for sure that it has consciousness. As you read this argument, it should seem to be missing something. If the argument were to read: "humans can act intelligently without being consciously aware, therefore proving that animals can act intelligently does not prove that they are consciously aware," it would make sense. The original argument, however, leaves a gap between behavior and intelligence. Answer choice (A) connects these two by establishing that humans (and animals) that can complete complex goal-oriented behavior are indeed intelligent. Now it makes sense that this behavior and the intelligence that such behavior requires does not prove that someone (or something) is consciously aware. They can be sleep-walking.

(B) is attractive, but it doesn’t link behavior and intelligence.
(C) mentions behavior and consciousness, but refers to conscious behavior, not the complex, goal-oriented behavior mentioned in the argument.
(D) doesn’t link behavior and intelligence.
(E) doesn’t link behavior and intelligence.

#officialexplanation

[cyruswhittaker]

This question took a lot of time for me, and I think part of it was the wording of the assumption.

Would this question be more of a sufficient assumption question rather than a necessary assumption? It doesn't seem like it would be necessary that the behavior requires intelligence in general, but that only some complex goal-oriented behavior requires intelligence.

Any clarification would be great! Thanks.

[aileenann]

So the language of the question itself certainly points to a necessary assumption rather than a sufficient one (since they ask for "an assumption on which the argument depends").

A necessary assumption is one that is essential to the argument, meaning that if it is not true, then the argument falls apart. If we negate the correct answer here, we would say that at least some complex, goal oriented behavior does not require intelligence. Let's add this into the mix of the argument, which would now read:

Humans sometimes exhibit complex behavior that is not conscious.
<There is some complex behavior that does not require intelligence.>
Therefore we can't conclude an animal is conscious just because it is intelligent.

But now this doesn't work at all because our one fact - that humans sometimes exhibit complex behavior - doesn't link up *at all* with the conclusion. You could totally ignore this conclusion because we don't see any reason why intelligence doesn't tell us about consciousness. After all, we can now rationalize away those complex behaviors that humans engage in without consciousness as being some that are not even intelligent. Therefore with this negated assumption, they no longer bear on the question that the conclusion addresses.

This is a very complicated/weird argument, and so it's quite abstract to think about. I'd recommend you run through this negation test on your own to really get into it.

Please let me know if any of this doesn't make sense, or if you are not satisfied for any reason, and I'll take another stab at it

[cyruswhittaker]

Thank you for the explanation; it's getting clearer. So is the below form a correct abstract relationship of what's going on?

Humans can have A without having B. Thus, just having C will not establish that they have D.

Necessary Assumption: A requires C.

Negated Assumption: A does not require C. So in this case, there's no "link" between A and C that allows the conclusion to follow.

To me, it seems like this necessary assumption is also a sufficient assumption, as it does allow for a conclusive argument. So it seems like this assumption is unique in that it is both sufficient and necessary. Is this correct?

[interestedintacos]

I think you latched on to a great point, Cyrus. You're right. The correct answer is not a necessary assumption.

The claim is: A doesn't necessarily imply B: ~(A-->B). To prove this we need at least one case where we get A without B; that's all we need. As you correctly intuited, we wouldn't need everycase of the human behavior in question to involve intelligence--but we would need at least one for the argument to have a chance of following.

We can couple the accurate negation of A with the argument, and the argument would still hold.

So the test makers, probably deliberately, snuck in a sufficient assumption answer with a necessary assumption question stem. A problem? Not really, because all the other answer choices are total trash. And this certainly doesn't change the fact that one ought to be careful not to choose, for instance, something that is a necessary assumption in a sufficient assumption question where the necessary assumption wouldn't get us where we need to be.

What Aileen said is largely correct; however, she is really just showing that if we negate A the argument wouldn't necessarily follow, but the argument still has a chance to follow (as long as there's one case where the complex behavior does in fact involve intelligence). We can't go from the negation of A to the idea that NO complex behavior involves intelligence. As long as there's still a chance that some does, then the negation of A doesn't kill the argument--the argument still could stand.

This sort of thing is exactly what a sufficient assumption is like. When you negate a sufficient assumption you no longer know for certain that the argument follows, but the argument still COULD follow--that's exactly what we get here. When you negate a necessary assumption the argument has absolutely no chance to follow--it's not just that the argument doesn't follow with what we have, but that the argument could never follow.

As I've already stated a bunch of times, the necessary assumption, as Cyrus jumped on, is that at least one case of the complex behavior involves/necessitates/constitutes consciousness.

This is the first time I've seen the test makers swap in a sufficient assumption answer with a necessary assumption question stem. I only wonder whether it was overlooked or much more likely done on purpose to add a bit of confusion.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey guys, great discussion! I completely see your point

This sort of thing is exactly what a sufficient assumption is like. When you negate a sufficient assumption you no longer know for certain that the argument follows, but the argument still COULD follow--that's exactly what we get here. When you negate a necessary assumption the argument has absolutely no chance to follow--it's not just that the argument doesn't follow with what we have, but that the argument could never follow.

As I've already stated a bunch of times, the necessary assumption, as Cyrus jumped on, is that at least one case of the complex behavior involves/necessitates/constitutes consciousness.

I too see this as more like a sufficient assumption than a necessary one, so I follow the policy that when see necessary assumptions so heavy in conditional logic I bridge the gap, but in the weakest form available. Since no weaker expression of answer choice (A) exists, i'd select it. But if as you said

As I've already stated a bunch of times, the necessary assumption, as Cyrus jumped on, is that at least one case of the complex behavior involves/necessitates/constitutes consciousness.

existed, I'd select it instead.

Take a look at PT45, S1, Q23. What do you guys think? Is this another example where the answer choice represents a sufficient assumption, rather than one that is necessary?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sorry about that, I had that question mistaken for another one. Here are some examples that are Necessary Assumptions, yet the answer choice feels more like one that is sufficient.

PT27, S4, Q20
PT45, S1, Q3
PT31, S3, Q11

Questions that test conditional logic in Necessary Assumptions are more likely to have answer choices that seem to bridge the gap just perfectly - straddling the middle ground between necessary and sufficient. Remember, some ideas are both.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Here's a formal way to look at this one...

CGO some ~CA
------------------
~(I ---> CA)

(Notation key: CGO = complex goal oriented behavior, CA = conscious awareness, I = intelligence)

In order to prove the conclusion, the evidence would need to establish

I some ~CA

But all we have is

CGO some ~CA

Let's bridge the gap...

CGO some ~CA (what we know)
CGO ---> I (the assumption)
-----------------
I some ~CA (what we would need to prove the conclusion)


Hope that helps!

[tamwaiman]

Hi mshermn

It seems that you equate ~(I ---> CA) to I some ~CA.
But why not just negate the necessary condition? i.e. I ---> ~CA

BTW, according to the logic form.
May I generalize as the following?
(1) Anyone CAN A without B = A some ~B
(2) Merely X will not establish Y = ~(X ---> Y)

Many thanks.

[geverett]

Hmmm....I have read the thread on this, but still don't think I am grasping it fully. Here are some thoughts, and I would love to get some more input. Diagram:

Premise 1:

Humans can exhibit
Complex Goal oriented ------> ~Conscious Awareness
behavior

Conclusion:

Non-human ---------> ~Consciousness
Intelligence

Now I saw an earlier poster mention something about "Why doesn't the arrow go from intelligence to complex goal oriented behavior" That definitely would be sufficient to draw this conclusion in my book b/c then we would have a digram like this

Humans can exhibit
Complex Goal oriented -------> ~ Conscious Awareness
behavior

Intelligence -----> Complex Goal Oriented Behavior

Intelligence ----> ~Consciousness

Of course this would also assume that conscious awareness is consciousness.

The reason why A is not making sense to me is b/c it's setup would look like this:

Human beings can
exhibit complex -----> ~Conscious Awareness
goal oriented
behavior ------> Intelligence


Non human
Intelligence -----> ~Conscious Awareness

I don't see how we get our conclusion from this.

New Insight:

However, if complex goal oriented behavior requires Intelligence as this answer shows then we can also say that some intelligent behavior is complex, goal oriented and so in that case some intelligent behavior would not have conscious awareness as the conclusion states. Here is how that would be diagrammed:

Premise 1:

Human beings can
exhibit complex ------> ~Conscious Awareness
goal oriented behavior

Assumption:

CGO behavior -----> Intelligence

You can also go the other way on the arrow (See formal logic section in Manhattan LR book if this makes no sense):

Intelligence ----some----> CGO behavior

So as a result the conclusion would follow:

Intelligence --some----> ~Conscious Awareness

Because some intelligence does not require conscious awareness. Make sense or not?

I chose B when I did this question b/c it seemed to me to be the contrapositive of the conclusion, and I deduced the contra to be necessary and answer choice A to be sufficient. Answer choice A now that I look at it with the use of "some" following the arrow backwards now is both necessary and sufficient in my opinion. Would love to hear more on this.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

It seems that you equate ~(I ---> CA) to I some ~CA.
But why not just negate the necessary condition? i.e. I ---> ~CA

The reason is that the logical opposite of "all" is "not all." If I asked you for the logical opposite of "all" and you said "none," I would say that represents a polar opposite, but not the logical opposite.

So if you're trying to negate "all A's are B's," you would say "not all A's are B's." Which could be rephrased to say "some A's are not B's."

It's not that saying "no A's are B's" wouldn't challenge the idea that "all A's are B's," but it's not exactly the logical opposite - it's stronger than the logical opposite.

May I generalize as the following?
(1) Anyone CAN A without B = A some ~B
(2) Merely X will not establish Y = ~(X ---> Y)

Nice work! Those are exactly right!

Humans can exhibit
Complex Goal oriented ------> ~Conscious Awareness
behavior

Conclusion:

Non-human ---------> ~Consciousness
Intelligence

Sorry geverett, but those do not represent the correct ideas expressed in conditional logic. Have you heard of quantified statements - "some" and "most" statements? Saying that humans can exhibit complex goal oriented behavior without conscious awareness does not imply that every human who exhibits complex goal oriented behavior will not have conscious awareness. Expressing the idea in the form a conditional statement is too strong. We're looking to express the possibility, not the certainty.

So you would express it as "some things can exhibit complex goal oriented behavior without conscious awareness."

CGO some ~CA

Notation Key: CGO = complex goal orientated behavior, CA = conscious awareness

Another way of saying that would be to say that "not all things that exhibit complex goal orientated behavior have conscious awareness. The logical opposite of "not all" is "all." So the idea that

CGO some ~CA

represents the logical opposite of

CGO ---> CA

everything that exhibits complex goal orientated behavior has conscious awareness. Try thinking about what the conclusion is trying to prove. It's trying to prove the negation of a conditional relationship.

Suppose I try to prove it's not true that "all A's are C's." To do that I will need to establish that "some A's are not C's." But suppose I only have evidence to establish that "some A's are B's." The gap in the reasoning would be that "no B's are C's." Adding "no B's are C's" to the idea that "some A's are B's" would establish that "some A's are not C's," thereby establishing the conclusion that it's not true that "all A's are C's."

Complicated I know, but that's what's actually going on in this argument. And in fact the idea of refuting a conditional or quantified statement is all over the LSAT. Once you see it, you see it on almost every LSAT.

Good luck!

[geverett]

It just clicked I believe.

So since:

CGO --some--> ~CA

Assumption: CGO ----> NHI

Then NHI ----some---> ~CA

Since one of these things necessarily follow from complex goal oriented behavior (NHI, the assumption) and one of these things follow in some instances. You can then form a chain between the two of them that

NHI ----some---> ~CA

Does that make sense? Am I on it yet?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

It just clicked I believe.

So since:

CGO --some--> ~CA

Assumption: CGO ----> NHI

Then NHI ----some---> ~CA

Since one of these things necessarily follow from complex goal oriented behavior (NHI, the assumption) and one of these things follow in some instances. You can then form a chain between the two of them that

NHI ----some---> ~CA

Does that make sense? Am I on it yet?

Nice, that's it!

If you combine a "some" statement with an "all" statement make sure that the common term between the two statements is on the sufficient condition of the "all" statement. Once in a while you'll see the argument try to combine

A ---> B
B some C

but that would be mistaking a sufficient condition for one that is necessary - a common reversal. Some statements can be read backwards and forwards, so it doesn't matter where the common term sits on the "some" statement. If some A's are B's, it likewise follows that some B's are A's.

Did I answer your question?

[aradunakhor]

But if as you said

As I've already stated a bunch of times, the necessary assumption, as Cyrus jumped on, is that at least one case of the complex behavior involves/necessitates/constitutes consciousness.

existed, I'd select it instead.

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but after working through the problem and reading the thread, my understanding is that the necessary assumption here is that some CGO requires intelligence. The quote by tacos says some CGO requires consciousness which doesn't seem to match everything else he wrote. In particular, it doesn't match

... but the argument still has a chance to follow (as long as there's one case where the complex behavior does in fact involve intelligence).

Was this a typo, or am I missing something here?

[james.h.meyers]

so many posts on this one!

So, i thought it sounded sufficient at first as well, but when I diagramed it I realized my mistake and it became clear. I suppose I'm writing this partly for validation and partly because I think I have it can be broken down simply.

Sentence 1 says that humans can exhibit CGO behavior without being conscious of it. This tells us that even if there is a single individual in which this ever occurred that CGO behavior does not imply consciousness.

Sentence 2 tells us what the author concluded: intelligence does not imply consciousness.

so the simple versions of the sentences:

1: CGO does not imply consciousness
2 (conclusion): intelligence does not imply consciousness

OR

CGO -/-> con
---------------
I -/-> con

if something, A, does not imply something else, B, then A is not sufficient and B is not necessary.

I think what throws people off (thinking something sounds like it should be sufficient when it is necessary) is the fact that we are dealing with something that does not imply something else. Really sentence 1 tells you nothing - if an animal has CGO they might have consciousness but they might not. If they have consciousness they might have CGO or they might not. The only time we know something is when something is implied.

Now we can immediately tell that we need to link CGO and intelligence, (after all the author basically just swaps out the phrase CGO for Intelligence, so the assumption has to be that the author links the two) but how? Which one is necessary and which one is sufficient? I.e. which is required for which?

The fact that Intelligence is in the conclusion - it is what is drawn from the premise - (I believe) effects the necessary sufficient condition.

The author concludes that because CGO yada yada, it MUST BE the case that Intelligence yada yada. There is no getting around it! We have CGO so we MUST have Intelligence. If we had Intelligence that would not tell us anything except what could be (look at the guys outside of CGO but still inside Intelligence). But because all CGO is within Intelligence - all A's are B's - it is NECESSARY that something have Intelligence for us to say that it has CGO.

What is required? Intelligence.

I made little set bubbles next to the question and it was easy.



I put it next to a basic DOG if/then relationship as an analogy.
All D's are A's.
And if it's not an ANIMAL then it's not a DOG.

The missing necessary assumption is that CGO implies Intelligence.

That's a lot of writing for something I said became kinda simple but I saw a lot of confusion with what implies what, and I believe it stemmed from the fact the question's premise and conclusion discuss something that does not imply something else, whereas the assumption answer needs to be a standard something does imply something else. All things considered, I think after drilling a few of these types this questions should actually be pretty easy and not cause much confusion.

[jake.jh.park]

Is this one of the questions where the necessary assumption is also a sufficient assumption? If we add the correct answer choice A to the stimulus, does it make the argument logical? It seems to me the answer is yes. Could any instructor shed some light on this?

Thanks in advance!

This diagram should be like this.
Premise: ~CGO -> CA
Conclusion: ~ Intelligence (because of the word "will not establish" which means not sufficient)-> CA

~Int -> ~CGO
CGO -> Int

[noah]

I've been discussing this problem with a student and came to refresh myself by looking at this thread. I see some discussion of whether the answer is necessary and I would say it is. If there can be this fancy complex goal-oriented behavior without intelligence, and that same behavior does not involve conscious awareness, than how can we use those premises (which have no known overlap between intelligence and conscious awareness) to get to a conclusion stating animal intelligence is not proof of animal consciousness?

We don't need a negated necc. assumption to disprove the conclusion, just to make it that we can't get there from the given premises.

[dmsqlc1121]

1: CGO does not imply consciousness
2 (conclusion): intelligence does not imply consciousness

OR

CGO -/-> con
---------------
I -/-> con

if something, A, does not imply something else, B, then A is not sufficient and B is not necessary.

Wow, this post really helped me understand this question. Thank you so much!

If I may add a few of my own thoughts regarding this questions,
1. This is definitely a necessary assumption question (but weird).
2. negation technique is not a good technique to use in this question.
and
3. this I am not quite sure, but if you use James's diagram,

A -/-> B
C -/-> B,

the answer should be something that links A and C, which is exactly what answer choice (A) is doing.

[uhdang]

OK, I've read all the postings on this post to figure out the complete reasoning of how "intelligence" has to be necessary condition for "complex,goal-oriented behavior", not the other way around.

I've thought about it in both ways (Just reasoning it and formal logic ways), but although it feels like I have grasped the concept, I can't seem to put that into words, which means that I'm not 100% sure of this reasoning.

It's very very clear that gap exists between "complex and goal-oriented behavior" and "intelligence." How do I make sense of the order? If there was an answer choice F) saying, "intelligence requires complex,goal-oriented behavior", I am not sure if I can reason why it's wrong.

Personally, I want to really understand how it is as well as formal logic way, but not sure how to do so in either way.

Can anyone please elaborate on this please?

[ohthatpatrick]

Try this analogy on for size:

Just because you can make a half-court shot in basketball does not establish that you are a good shooter. After all, random people out of the audience make a contest-winning shot at halftime without being a good shooter.

Which is being assumed:
- if you made a contest winning shot, you made a half-court shot
or
- if you made a half-court shot, you hit a contest winning shot

(the 1st one)

One more:
Just because you can recognize a surrealist painting doesn't mean that you know art history. After all, lots of people recognize paintings by Salvador Dali without knowing anything about art history.

Which is being assumed:
- All surrealist paintings were done by Dali
or
- All Dali's paintings were surrealist paintings

(the 2nd one)

In the first case, I needed to know that "hitting a contest winning shot" was an example of hitting a half court shot.

In the second example, I needed to know that "a painting by Dali" was an example of a surrealist painting.

And in general, any time there's a language shift between an idea from the PREM and its corresponding match in the CONC, you need to receive that link in this order:
PREM -> CONC

In Q17, we need to know that "exhibiting complex, goal-oriented behavior" is an example of intelligence.

That's what (A) gives us. If we negate (A), then exhibiting complex, goal-oriented behavior may or may not be an example of intelligence.

Only if we know that CGO behavior is an example of intelligence can we get to our conclusion, which attempts to prove that you can HAVE intelligence WITHOUT consciousness.