Q17 - Zoologist: Animals can certainly

[haeaznboiyoung]

I narrowed it down to C and D. I see why D works, just having trouble seeing why C doesn't.

P: Animals can certainly signal each other with sounds and gestures

P: it does not prove that animals possess the ability to use sounds or gestures to refer to concrete objects or abstract ideas.

Assumption: When signaling each other with sounds or gestures, animals refer neither to concrete objects nor abstract ideas

C: (Therefore), this does not confirm the thesis that animals possess language


Not also completely sure if the second half of that statement is the premise... just seems like it is used to provide an explanation of how they reached the conclusion. But please correct me if I am wrong.

Much appreciated if anyone can provide insight!

EDIT: Okay.. after reading over my own post I think I see it. Is it because C does not refer to what is considered a language or not? Still need confirmation on the premise and conclusion breakdown though, thanks!

[aileenann]

Hi there!

Yes, your breakdown of the premises and conclusion are absolutely correct.

Similarly, (C) does not connect up to language, as is necessary to get to the conclusion, so that is why it's not the assumption we need here. Great job!

[interestedintacos]

Answer choice D is the contrapositive of the implied (and necessary) assumption of the argument--it fills the gap technically left open between 'reference...' and 'language'.

With that said, it appears answer choice C would also be a necessary assumption if we take D to be a necessary assumption. That's because if we accept D the negation of C would seem to take down the argument. Insofar as D is necessary, then (and therefore a correct answer), C would also be necessary and equally correct.

D says for language there must be reference...; the negation of C says that the animal gesture stuff could mean we have reference. The arguer says animal gesture stuff isn't language because it's missing the necessary element of reference--if we get the necessary element of reference then it seems that the arguer's line of reasoning fails. The premise he uses to reach his conclusion would no longer hold. His conclusion might be true still, but the argument he uses to get there wouldn't work.

My question for others and MLSAT:
Now from what I've seen an assumption is necessary for these questions if its negation would kill the connection between the premise(s) and conclusion--i.e. the premises would no longer support the conclusion. Is this true? Or is something only necessary if its negation means the conclusion cannot be true (suggested by a test prep company in its explanation of this question)? For example: "John claims the new model being produced by Ford Motors is exclusively red because Ford's factories now only use red." In my mind a necessary assumption would be that Ford doesn't construct its new models in non-Ford factories. If this assumption were negated, and Ford did construct new models in non-Ford factories, the basis for John's conclusion would no longer hold, even though his conclusion could still be correct in the end that the new model is exclusively red.

Now having said all that I want to show why all of this is actually irrelevant. I think there is another reason to go against C: the difference between the idea (C) that animals use of gestures could in fact be referring..., and what's at issue in the argument: whether animals use of gestures is enough to confirm or provelanguage.

For instance, it may be true that in fact my use of a computer necessarily implies I'm studying for the LSAT. Nevertheless, knowing I'm using the computer isn't enough to confirm/prove that I'm studying for the LSAT. You may also need to know other facts about me. This is ultimately why C is not correct, not because "C doesn't mention language," as the previous posters suggest. If C said that "gestures are enough to confirm reference" I think it would be just as necessary as D--C and D together would both be necessary in order for the logic to hold.

[bbirdwell]

My question for others and MLSAT:
Now from what I've seen an assumption is necessary for these questions if its negation would kill the connection between the premise(s) and conclusion--i.e. the premises would no longer support the conclusion. Is this true?

True. Great example with Ford and red. The negation of your necessary assumption doesn't kill the conclusion, it kills, as you said, the basis for the conclusion.

I'm not sure I know what you mean about taking (C) being a necessary assumption if (D) is. Regardless, I don't think that is true. Here's why.

Conclusion: signaling with sounds and gestures ≠ language

Premise: signaling with sounds and gestures ≠ referring to concrete objects or abstract ideas

(technically, the phrase "is not necessarily" should be used in place of the "≠" sign -- I just find it easier to understand this way)

So what's the big assumption? That language = referring to concrete objects or abstract ideas.

This is what (D) says.

what's at issue in the argument: whether animals use of gestures is enough to confirm or provelanguage.

Right.
The argument does not assume (C). In fact it directly states that "(C) is not necessarily the case." That is to say, within the argument itself is built the possibility that perhaps animals do refer to abstract ideas or concrete objects, and this simply cannot be confirmed on the basis that they make signals.

This leads us to "language,"

I agree with the previous poster that the connection to language is a great way to key in on the correct answer. As "language" is the essential ingredient in the conclusion, it's highly likely to be part of the correct answer. Not certain, but highly likely.

it may be true that in fact my use of a computer necessarily implies I'm studying for the LSAT. Nevertheless, knowing I'm using the computer isn't enough to confirm/prove that I'm studying for the LSAT.

Sharp eye for spotting the importance of the "confirm/prove" aspect of the argument. This example you created is not accurate, though. The first statement gives us:
use computer --> studying for LSAT.
So, if I know you're using the computer, I can actually confirm that you are studying for the LSAT. I don't need to know anything else about you. That's what the word "necessarily" indicates, straight up.

Regardless, I can see that you're all over this problem, and you've got a sharp eye for detail. Much thanks for posting an explanation! I invite you to continue contributing explanations, as it will help others' and your own understanding...

Cheers!

[interestedintacos]

This example you created is not accurate, though. The first statement gives us:
use computer --> studying for LSAT.
So, if I know you're using the computer, I can actually confirm that you are studying for the LSAT. I don't need to know anything else about you. That's what the word "necessarily" indicates, straight up.

Yes, I think that example illuminated something for me.

This rests again with test prep company advice that's bad. Some test prep companies would say that the negation of answer choice C would be 'when signaling each other, animals refer to concrete objects or abstract ideas.' This creates a proposition: If signaling, then reference to concrete objects/abstract ideas(analogues to my computer/LSAT example).

I've seen some companies say that the previous is a valid negation and the following is also a valid negation, although in my opinion the following is correct and the previous is incorrect:

The denial of C is 'when signaling each other, animals may refer to concrete objects or abstract ideas.

My analogy would be changed on the basis of this interpretation to: It may be the case that when I use the computer, I'm studying for the LSAT, but the fact I'm using the computer isn't enough to confirm I'm studying for the LSAT.

So this highlights the dangers of accepting bad test prep company advice. The logical negation of "if A, not B" is that we may be able to get A with B (we can get the sufficient condition without the necessary condition), not that if we get A we must get B.

Thanks for pointing that out. I remember thinking about it but your comments helped me think it through.

----

I also want to add: I wrote out the question and issue regarding what a necessary assumption is because another test prep company actually states literally, and in reference to this question, that the negation of a necessary assumption must ruin the truth of the conclusion, which is clearly not true, and I'm glad MLSAT staff see this as well, since these questions make up a lot of the LR sections. The issue isn't the truth or falsity of the conclusion, it's the connection between the premises and the conclusion.

[interestedintacos]

Having thought a little more about it...

According to my interpretation of the text (in the last post) we get a conditional like this:

1. A --> ~B

Incorrect negation: A--> B (that I associate with test prep co.s)

Correct negation ~(A-->~B)

However the text may actually translate to a conditional like this (this matches my original interpretation):

2. ~(A--> B)

The correct negation of this would be

~~(A-->B) which = A-->B.

If the text involved actually translates to conditional #2 then my talk of the logical negation being incorrect in the last post doesn't hold. The negation of conditional #2 would in fact lead to us knowing that A necessarily implies B.

If that's so then my analogy with the computer use and the LSAT does in fact match the stimulus (and it would have to--otherwise answer choice C would be a necessary assumption). I do think that's possible. Why? Because even if it's the case that A--> B, that doesn't mean I'm aware of it and thus have "enough to confirm" that A-->B. Your response indicated that we know A-->B, but my point was that we might not. Even if it's true that A-->B, just knowing A (that I'm using a computer) wouldn't leave you with enough in order to confirm that A-->B, that my computer use necessarily indicates I'm studying for the LSAT.

Likewise, the negation of answer choice C, if taken as a match to the second conditional, would lead to A-->B, but it wouldn't ruin the argument because the fact that A-->B is true doesn't necessarily mean that knowing A alone is enough to prove B. We would also have to know that A-->B.

This sort of issue is much more subtle and arguable, and for that reason I was led to the idea that the text actually matches proposition 1 after reading your response, in which case my computer use/LSAT thing is based on a misinterpretation.

Here are examples in my mind of the 2 propositions. Let me know if you think either of these match or if perhaps they are both off. Perhaps drawing any conditional from the text is unwarranted even?

The text, again, was "When signaling each other with _______, animals refer neither to ____ or ____.

Proposition 1 rewording: If/when signaling, it's necessarily true that animals are not referring to _______
(proposition 1: A-->~B)

Proposition 2: It's not the case that if/when signaling, animals are referring to ______.
(~(A-->B))

I'm hoping you can take a look and respond and tell me what you think. Of course either of these 2 interpretations would still mean answer choice C is wrong, but the second interpretation would mean it's wrong for a much more subtle reason than expected.

Another example of the two different propositions:
1. If an animal is eating tacos, the animal therefore must not be happy.

2. It's not the case that if an animal eats tacos it's therefore happy.



Side point: ~(A-->B) is equivalent to A & ~B (that is, A being true while B is not true) but not to A-->~B (If you get A you necessarily don't get B). This may clear up why in general when we negate conditionals it's good to think of the sufficient condition potentiallyoccurring without the necessary condition, but that doesn't mean the sufficient condition obtaining necessarily precludes the necessary condition from obtaining.

[bbirdwell]

I think you're all over it now. Prop 2 with the tacos seems to be at play here, and your side point about negating an entire conditional relationship seems valid. I've seen this at play on 2 LSAT questions, ever, that I can remember.

What I think is most useful about this is, always, and especially when in doubt, stick as closely to the conclusion as possible and use it as a life raft or tiebreaker. The conclusion is the only part of the argument that mentions language. Therefore, choose the choice that properly relates language to the premises. That's how I got this one correct in less than 90 seconds and didn't get hung up on (C).

Nice work, though don't hurt yourself thinking too hard about stuff like this. Remember the SAT? The most common trap was to try to the straight-ahead algebra and figure out all the equations, while the smooth test-taker focused on eliminating choices and plugging in numbers like "2" to make things easy. Always make things easy on yourself when you have a choice -- that's a winning strategic decision. Standardized tests reward informed, judicious laziness.

I invite you to come to one of my free workshops sometime!

[csunnerberg13]

I have a general question that this question is an example of...

I'm just wondering about "some"/"most" on answer choices to necessary assumption questions. I had read somewhere throughout the forums that an answer choice for a necessary assumption question would have to be very deliberately worded for "some" or "most" to be part of the answer...where/how can I apply this concept? For instance, is that sort what we would say to eliminate (E) - because we only know about SOME animals in answer choice E, it is not strong enough to be our necessary assumption?

Thanks

[WaltGrace1983]

I have a general question that this question is an example of...

I'm just wondering about "some"/"most" on answer choices to necessary assumption questions. I had read somewhere throughout the forums that an answer choice for a necessary assumption question would have to be very deliberately worded for "some" or "most" to be part of the answer...where/how can I apply this concept? For instance, is that sort what we would say to eliminate (E) - because we only know about SOME animals in answer choice E, it is not strong enough to be our necessary assumption?

Thanks

"Some" and "most" are very different concepts for necessary assumption questions. "Some" is typically indicative of a fairly good answer choice when it has the right ideas and "most" is typically indicative of a wrong answer choice even when it has some right ideas in there. In other words, "most" is often wrong while "some" is a little bit trickier because it hinges a bit more on the actual ideas presented. NEVER just eliminate an answer choice because it includes "most" or does not include "some."

"Most" is typically not necessary simply because most arguments do not hinge on the difference between "half" and "more than half."

I'll give you an example: "I study hard for the LSAT. Therefore, I will get a 180." The assumption is that "studying hard" has something to do with "getting a 180," namely that "studying hard" is sufficient for a 180. A bad answer choice would be, "Most people who study hard get a 180." That seems really good! However, the problem is that we are talking only about me. I am assuming that "studying hard" is sufficient for me - not anyone else - but me. However, if I said "at least some person who studies hard will get a 180," that is indeed necessary. Why? Because if NO ONE who studies hard gets a 180, why would it make sense for me to argue that (study hard --> 180)? It wouldn't.

However, if I said "everyone at MLSAT studies hard. Therefore everyone at MLSAT will get a 180" I absolutely must assume that "most people at MLSAT who study hard will get a 180." Why? Because I am concluding that EVERYONE who studies hard at MLSAT will get a 180 and EVERYONE who studies hard includes MOST people who study hard. It is also necessary to say that "some people at MLSAT who study hard will get a 180." Why? Because EVERYONE who studies hard includes MOST people who study hard. See what I mean?

[WaltGrace1983]

I was thinking about negating conditionals and I stumbled upon this problem for practice. It is CONFUSING. Can anyone tell me if I got this right?

(Animals signaling each other with sounds or gestures) does not prove the ability to use them to refer to concrete objects or abstract ideas
→
(Animals signaling each other with sounds or gestures) does not confirm that animals possess language

Assumption: To confirm language, one must prove ability to refer to concrete objects or abstract ideas

Now onto why I thought about negating conditionals...

(C) (Signaling with sounds or gestures → Refer to ~CO & ~AI). If we negate this, we get ~(Signaling with sounds or gestures → Refer to ~CO & ~AI). This would mean that we don't know what happens when the animals signal with sounds or gestures. We don't know what they refer to, if anything. This is certainly problematic because we do need to know something about what they are referring to. If we don't anything, then it is just as likely that we destroy the argument or help the argument.


-If we said that the animals AREN'T referring to (Concrete Objects) or (Abstract Ideas) then this would actually help the argument, making it less likely that the animals possess language.
-If we said that the animals ARE referring to (Concrete Objects) or (Abstract Ideas) then this would actually hurt the argument, making it more likely that the animals possess language.

This is of course all working under the assumption that referring to concrete objects or abstract ideas is something necessary for language (what D would later get to).

(D) However, works a little bit differently. (System of sounds or gestures doesn't contain expressions referring to concrete objects or abstract arguments → ~Language). If we negate this, we get the following: ~(System of sounds or gestures doesn't contain expressions referring to concrete objects or abstract arguments → ~Language). So what this means is that the "System of sounds or gestures that doesn't contain expressions referring to concrete objects or abstract arguments" could be either a language or not a language.

Why is this problematic for the argument? This is problematic because the argument definitely says that the sounds or gestures does not confirm that animals possess language, period. By showing that the system of sounds or gestures MAY or MAY NOT confirm the animals language then we are in serious doubt of the conclusion. Basically, we have no reason to believe (or not believe) the conclusion. Thus, the conclusion does not follow from the premises and that is exactly what we are trying to find when we negate an answer choice. (D) is correct.

How does that look, guys and girls?

I'll knock out the less relevant ones only for completeness sake.


(A) They could totally have the cognitive abilities but the key is to prove whether or not they use sounds/gestures to refer to those abstract ideas

(B) Once again, we don't care about "entertaining," we want to see how signaling ties in to those abstract ideas

(E) This would have probably been right if it would have said "Some animals that possess a language can refer to either concrete objects or abstract ideas." However, it is not necessary to be able to refer to both.

[maryadkins]

BEAUTIFUL!!!!!!

[Mab6q]

Let me see if I can provide a simpler explanation for D over C.

The conclusion is that the signaling does not establish the thesis that animals posses language.

WHY: posses language --> posses the ability to use sounds or gestures to refer to CO or AI.

C negate: It's not true that when signaling with each other with sounds or gestures, animals refer neither to CO nor AI. As was exhaustively explained above, we don't know from the negation that animals indeed do refer to CO or AI. But let's say that we do know this, it would be the most extreme form of negation. In that case, we would show that animals do have this ability, which would seem to attack the assumption that the author is making. However, and this is the important point, his point is not simply that they don't posses language, it's that from the fact that they signal, we can't establish that they possess language.

So, C is not in fact necessary. If you told the Zoologist that animals do refer to CO or AI, he might not have an issue; he would counter by clarifying that his main point was that the sheer fact that they signal does not establish this point.

Now on to D: fits perfectly in the argument, connecting language with CO and AI. Now, does the same issue with C arise with D? No, because D tells us why CO and AI is relevant. It focuses on plugging the gap in the argument. If D is negated, it tells us the the fact that we don't know whether they have CA or AI is not necessary, and that would kill the argument.

Hope that makes sense.

[cyt5015]

is that sort what we would say to eliminate (E) - because we only know about SOME animals in answer choice E, it is not strong enough to be our necessary assumption?

The reason to eliminate answer E is not because "some" is not strong enough, think about this sentence: some language can refer to either concrete objects or abstract ideas. I also use some here, but this sentence becomes the necessary assumption of the original argument.
To be a necessary assumption, the answer choice must be true based on the stimulus. Is answer E a must be true statement? We have no idea that there are some animals do or do not possess language ability.

I fell for answer C when taking the test and now realized that I mistreated the premise "for it does not prove..."as the intermediate conclusion, therefore, mistakenly seeking for the gap between "Animal can signal" and "it does not prove possessing the ability..." by wondering why it does not prove. Like some geek mentioned above, answer C is part of the premise, just was not clearly stated.

[seychelles1718]

other than via the negation test, can we also eliminate C because it contradicts the stimulus? The stimulus says we can't prove whether animals refer to abstract ideas or concrete objects using sounds and gestures. Then the author cannot possibly assume C, because we are already told that we don't know if animals communicate abstract ideas/concrete objects.

Please correct me if I am wrong!

[maryadkins]

I don't think the author says we cannot know if animals do this. The author says a PARTICULAR fact does not prove this (which is different than saying it cannot ever be proven). I agree with you, though, that the author says something isn't proven about animals, and (C) goes a bit farther and says that not only is it not proven, but the opposite is true of animals. That would be a good way of eliminating it as a necessary assumption.

[emily315]

ok, I'm just really confused how could C be wrong and D be right?
Isn't D introduced new information, "system of sounds" which never been mentioned by the author? When does the author specify that it must be a SYSTEM of sounds? The author is simply saying that sounds and gestures made by animals couldn't be count as sounds, because all those can't express abstract ideas or refer to concrete objects. What if they do?

[a8l367]

Isn't D stated in the passage?

For example look at the statement:
"it's not food, for it has neither smell nor taste"
Can we say that in this statement assumption is - if something has neither smell nor taste then it's not food?
Or can we say that this is stated indirectly in the statement? I mean from statement alone we can make such conclusion so it's not an assumption.

[LSATN100]

P: the fact that animals can signal each other with sound and gestures doesn't prove that animals process the ability to use sounds or gestures to refer to concrete objects or abstract ideas.
C: the fact that animals can signal each other with sound and gestures doesn't confirm that animals possess language.
new element in the conclusion: possess language

gap: Not [use sounds or gestures to refer to concrete objects or abstract ideas] -> Not [possess language]
(D) fills the gap.

(C) is a trap. It splits the premise into two parts without relating to the new element that appears in the conclusion.

The structure of the argument is:
premise: AB
conclusion: C
gap: AB -> c

(C) is saying [A -> B]. It simply plays a word game with the premise.