Q18

[LSAT-Chang]

Why is the answer not (D) for this??? Author of passage A would clearly disagree with this as suggested in lines 25-27 whereas the author of passage B seems like he would agree with it since in lines 59 -- he states that recent research with chimpanzees call into question the assumption that animals respond mechanically to stimuli, whereas humans speak with conscious understanding and intent. So he is questioning the idea that only humans can do this, right?

[ohthatpatrick]

Good question. I love that you had your proof sentence to support your rationale.

I think both authors are conceding that chimpanzees are the closest thing to human communication (and its associated cognitive abilities).

The line reference you cited in psg. A suggests that chimps don't necessarily provide information to other chimps who need it, but that's different from whether or not they are able to attribute mental states to others.

If you look back at lines 10-12, the author of psg. A says "most animals, with the possible exception of chimpanzees, cannot attribute mental states to others".

So the author of A is definitely leaving open the possibility that chimps may be able to attribute mental states to others.

Note that (C), the correct answer, doesn't HAVE to necessarily address a main point (it could just as easily have an answer choice about a specific detail the authors disagree over), but it's very typical for LSAT to test the relationship between the two passages when you're doing comparative reading.

(C) is the essence of the difference. Psg. A was basically talking about the difference between human and non-human communication, while Psg. B was suggesting that that dichotomy is probably a false one.

We know Psg. B disagrees with (C) from the last sentence of Psg. B. We know Psg. A agrees with (C) from all the examples brought up in the 2nd paragraph of Psg. A.

I hope this helps.

[goriano]

Good question. I love that you had your proof sentence to support your rationale.

I think both authors are conceding that chimpanzees are the closest thing to human communication (and its associated cognitive abilities).

The line reference you cited in psg. A suggests that chimps don't necessarily provide information to other chimps who need it, but that's different from whether or not they are able to attribute mental states to others.

If you look back at lines 10-12, the author of psg. A says "most animals, with the possible exception of chimpanzees, cannot attribute mental states to others".

So the author of A is definitely leaving open the possibility that chimps may be able to attribute mental states to others.

Note that (C), the correct answer, doesn't HAVE to necessarily address a main point (it could just as easily have an answer choice about a specific detail the authors disagree over), but it's very typical for LSAT to test the relationship between the two passages when you're doing comparative reading.

(C) is the essence of the difference. Psg. A was basically talking about the difference between human and non-human communication, while Psg. B was suggesting that that dichotomy is probably a false one.

We know Psg. B disagrees with (C) from the last sentence of Psg. B. We know Psg. A agrees with (C) from all the examples brought up in the 2nd paragraph of Psg. A.

I hope this helps.

What does human and animal communication differing "qualitatively" or "quantitatively/a matter of degree" exactly mean?

[ohthatpatrick]

People who think that human communication differs "qualitatively" from animal communication think that there is some special quality to human communication.

As these passages explain it, many people believe that human communication has the extra quality of perceiving the listener's mental state, and the act of communication is a volitional one, intended to change the listener's mental state.

By contrast, animal communication is thought to be purely instinctual. Even though it may result in the listener showing some behavioral change, it is thought that the communicator had no sense/intent of this happening.

People who think that human comm. differs only "quantitatively / in degree" from animal comm. think that communication is essentially similar across different species, it's just that humans communicate way more frequently than do other species.

These people may think that all communication is voluntary and recognizes the mental states of listeners, or they may think that all communication is instinctual. Either way, they don't think human communication is noteworthy because it possesses some special quality. They would only argue that it's special because humans communicate so much more frequently than do other animals.

Hope that helps.

[ripan.hans]

Why is choice (B) incorrect? Is it too broad?

[ripan.hans]

Hm, I think I understand now.

Choice B is stating that both passages claim there IS a difference between animal vs. human communication, and the issue between them is determining, "Okay, but how much of a difference?". This doesn't really support what's presented in B's argument. The author doesn't agree with there being a distinct difference and that the issue is just determining how far this difference goes, but B says there might not be an essential difference at all. (Lines 60-62).

Choice C on the other hand, is saying that the passages disagree on whether the difference is fundamental, or whether there is an essential difference in the first place. A would agree with there being a qualitative difference (as lines 8-11, 27-29 show). B would disagree, and say there is only a difference in degree. (Lines 60-65)

[logicfiend]

(B) is wrong because of the word "importance." Neither Passage A or B is arguing whether determining the difference between animal and human communications is or is not important.