Q18 - The question whether intelligent life

[b91302310]

I am confused by the answer choices (C) and (D).
Since the argument states that "we cannot just decide to define "intelligent life" in some more precise way". Does the argument suggest that we should not put emphasis on the definition of the intelligent life ? So, it is not important whether or not intelligent life can be adequately defined?

Could anyone explain it?

Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

Tough problem!

It's not that it doesn't matter whether the phrase can or cannot be adequately defined. The argument simply does not say that "intelligent life" CANNOT be defined. In fact, it suggests that "intelligent life" COULD be more precisely defined. The author just says that we SHOULD not define it in a more precise way. Why?

Because we won't find intelligent life if our definition is too narrow. This is why (D) is correct in saying "counterproductive."

We can infer what the antecedent claim is based on the "Yet..." This suggests that the claim said something along the lines of "we should make a more precise definition for the term 'intelligent life'."

This author does not respond by saying "that's not possible," but rather by saying "If we do that, we won't find any intelligent life."

On another note, there hasn't been a question like this on an LSAT in probly 15 years. There may be others in the very early tests, but this is the only one I've ever seen. I would advise you to work with more recent material this close to the exam!