Q18 - "Physicalists" expect that ultimately

[daniel]

Can someone review my thought process on this question? I saw two flaws, and would like to make sure I'm looking at this the right way.

Since this is a flaw question, I first want to make sure I understand the argument core. Here's how I understand it:

Premise: AG --> KBF + KNI + DF
Premise: KBF + DF
=====================
Conclusion: AG (likely)

(Notation key: AG = Achieving the goal of having all mental functions explainable in neurobiological terms; KBF = knowledge of basic functions; KNI = knowledge of how neurons interact; DF = delineation of functions to be explained)

Based on the way I've diagrammed this, it appears that there are two flaws. First, the argument indicates that 3 factors are required in order to achieve the goal of the "physicalists", but the argument concludes that the goal will (likely) be achieved soon based on the fact that two of the three requirements have been satisfied.

In addition, it looks like a reversal of the sufficient and necessary conditions... at least on the surface. However, I also recognize that the conclusion is presented in soft language: "bound" (could mean "certainly" or "likely"). But, I still don't see how satisfying a necessary condition for something makes that thing any more likely to occur. Is my thinking correct here? Isn't this still a reversal in any case?

(A) can be eliminated because there is no contradiction between the two claims: the author agrees that the physicalists claim is likely to be true. Eliminate.

(B) does not describe a flaw in logic, and the details of what is known about the basic functions is out of scope and not required by the argument. Eliminate.

(C) suggests there has been some equivocation, but there is nothing of the sort. Eliminate.

(D) out of scope. It is not necessary for the explanation to have any usefulness in order for the conclusion to be properly drawn.

(E) correct answer. This answer choice fills in the third factor that is presented as one of the three requirements for achieving the goal described in the stimulus. However, I was somewhat troubled by the fact that it doesn't address the reversal.

EDIT: OK, I think my diagram was probably wrong in representing the conclusion the way that I had done. Reading the conclusion again, it looks like there was a shift from the claim of the physicalists about "all mental functions" to "mental functions" (not necessarily all) in the conclusion.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great explanation!

Remember, the correct answer to a flaw question does not need to address EVERY flaw, just as the correct answer to Necessary Assumption doesn't have to prove the argument (there can be many Necessary Assumptions).

When you do Flaw questions in the late teens, (the hardest part of LR sections), they FREQUENTLY come with more than one flaw. If we're too rigidly attached to whatever flaw we may have noticed, we may have a hard time recognizing a correct answer that indicates a different flaw.

Here, admirably, you came out with more than one objection to the argument. That puts you in a better position to check out the answers, but even still you would want to be flexible about judging answers that describe problems that didn't occur to you.

I actually was completely off track in my assessment of the original argument. Like you, prior to your edit, I didn't really notice that the conclusion is NOT saying "ALL mental functions will receive explanations" but rather "at least SOME will". I was thinking of flaws related more to the former interpretation.

But, since the other four answers just weren't true, it was easy enough to settle on (E).

For anyone else checking out this explanation thread, let us know if you still have questions about any of it or would like it explained a different way.

[BackoftheEnvelope]

For anyone else checking out this explanation thread, let us know if you still have questions about any of it or would like it explained a different way.

I chose (E) initially, but changed my choice to (A) during my review. Here's my problem with (E):

Yes, the passage does not show whether another one of the necessary conditions (KNI) has been satisfied, BUT that would still lead to a flawed inference. Having the requirements for an outcome does not guarantee that the outcome will occur. For example, to build a table I need wood and tools. Having wood and tools, however, does not guarantee that I will be able to build a table. To get into law school, I need a high GPA. Having a high GPA, however, does not guarantee that I will get in. You get the point.

For (A), on the other hand, if “contradicts the claim" is referring to the conclusion “not being the same as the claim," then I’d be more inclined to go with this AC. Perhaps the error in reasoning is that it contradicts the original claim by listing what are posited as necessary as things that are sufficient. The physicalists say XYZ are necessary for A to occur, whereas the author is saying XYZ are sufficient for A to occur, thus, contradicting the claim of the physicalists.

Quantification: Even if we allow for a change in quantification across the support and conclusion (from "all mental functions" to "at least some mental functions"), we're still not allowed to infer that by having what's required for a universe of potential outcomes, we will be able to guarantee even one outcome among that universe.

Modality: Now, I can see how satisfying the necessary conditions of an outcome could make it more likely for that particular outcome to occur. Returning to my two examples above, while having wood and tools does not guarantee I'll be able to build a table, it does make so more likely. Similarly, while having a high GPA does not guarantee that I'll be able to get into law school, it certainly does make so more likely. However, I'm under the impression that "bound" expresses an absolute likelihood. While I don't know how it's used on the LSAT, the only circumstance in which (E) could work as TCR is if "bound" does not express an absolute likelihood.

That's the only way I can justify (E) as TCR. Please do feel free to provide your input!