Q19 - Anthropogist: Violence is an extreme

[pistachio2014]

I'm able to quickly eliminate choices A, C, D, E; however, am unable to understand why B cannot be inferred. Isn't the stimulus saying the Violence (a form of aggression) is distinct from the self-expression sufficient for survival under normal conditions-- so we may infer that the self-expression would be opposite of violent (non-aggression)? Thanks.

[aileenann]

We know that violence is distinct from the self expression necessary for survival under normal conditions. However, we also know that violence is only one form of aggression. Therefore, while we know violence is not the norm, we cannot conclude as (B) would have it that normal self aggression is not only non-violent but also non-aggressive. This is going beyond what we have knowledge of from the argument.

Hope this helps

[anniekim89]

I still don't quite understand how "is distinct from the self-expression sufficient for survival under normal conditions" translates into self expression being required for survival...

Am i reading the stimulus wrong? Can i please get a full explanation for the stimulus and explain B again? I'm so confused...

[Raiderblue17]

Ok so Here's what going on.

Violence is an extreme form of aggression from the self-expression SUFFICIENT for survival under normal conditions.

Answer choice B says: the self expression REQUIRED (NECESSARY) for survival is generally non-aggressive.

ALL we know is what is SUFFICIENT, AKA NOT REQUIRED for survival under normal conditions.

They try to get you all wrapped up in conditonal logic, but it really comes down to the small details and understanding that Sufficient and Necessary are not the same thing.

That's why B is correct. No need for diagrams, just close reading...

[slimjimsquinn]

I have a bone to pick with answer choice A) not all agression is violent.

Isn't this making the flaw assumption of some not?

Violence some Agression

we can't say that

Agression some - Violence


can we? Or does the word ' extreme' shield us from this possibility, since it inherently implies a non-extreme part of agression?

[timmydoeslsat]

I have a bone to pick with answer choice A) not all agression is violent.

Isn't this making the flaw assumption of some not?

Violence some Agression

we can't say that

Agression some - Violence


can we? Or does the word ' extreme' shield us from this possibility, since it inherently implies a non-extreme part of agression?

Answer choice A is an inference from extreme, you are correct.

[wj097]

I have a bone to pick with answer choice A) not all agression is violent.

Isn't this making the flaw assumption of some not?

Violence some Agression

we can't say that

Agression some - Violence


can we? Or does the word ' extreme' shield us from this possibility, since it inherently implies a non-extreme part of agression?

Answer choice A is an inference from extreme, you are correct.

Hey Tommy, can you tell why E can be inferred? I thought anthropologist says violent behavior IN CERTAIN SITUATION is a product of one's cultural environment, thus cannot say as in (E) that Violence in general is a product of culture...

Thx in advance

[bostonphoenix]

I have a bone to pick with answer choice A) not all agression is violent.

Isn't this making the flaw assumption of some not?

Violence some Agression

we can't say that

Agression some - Violence


can we? Or does the word ' extreme' shield us from this possibility, since it inherently implies a non-extreme part of agression?

Answer choice A is an inference from extreme, you are correct.

Hey Tommy, can you tell why E can be inferred? I thought anthropologist says violent behavior IN CERTAIN SITUATION is a product of one's cultural environment, thus cannot say as in (E) that Violence in general is a product of culture...

Thx in advance

This probably isn't satisfactory.

The first half of the stimulus explains that violence is extreme and is distinct from what is sufficient under normal circumstances. The second half explains when violence does occur.

The stimulus might have been better phrased "Human beings in [these] certain situations...".

Regardless B is a better answer, and sometimes you have to just go with that.

[chunsunb]

Yeah, so I think the reason that (B) is wrong is thAt it says nonaggressive rather than nonviolent. The excerpt tells us that violence is distinct from self-expression, not aggression; and since violence is a subset of aggression (as indicated by the first sentence of the excerpt), there may indeed be possibility that self expression is aggressive (but not violent)

[cnguye15]

The words "generally non-aggressive" is the reason why B is correct because no where in the stimulus is nonaggression is mentioned. So B is not supported. I am not sure about D, but I eliminated D because it can be inferred from the second clause of the first sentence.

[ohthatpatrick]

It’s high time we put up a complete explanation for this one.

Question Type: Inference - Must Be True EXCEPT

Task: Read the information in the stimulus. Synthesize claims where possible. Eliminate the four answers that must be true, or pick the one answer that can’t be proven from the provided info.

(A) I always clean up "Not all A are B" claims as "Some A are not-B". So this says "Some aggression is nonviolent". We can infer this from the first claim that "violence is an EXTREME form of aggression". If violence is an extreme form, then there must be other forms of aggression that aren’t extreme, that aren’t violent.

(B) correct answer
This speaks about "the self-expression REQUIRED for survival", but we only learned something about "the self-expression SUFFICIENT for survival".

The LSAT score SUFFICIENT for getting into University of Maryland might be a very different thing from the LSAT score REQUIRED for getting into University of Maryland.

Maybe a 180 is a guarantee that UMD will accept you, whereas a 150+ is what’s REQUIRED to get in.

Furthermore, even if we forgave them from switching from "sufficient" to "required", we still have the problem that the first sentence is saying that "non-violence" is sufficient for survival. Meanwhile, (B) is saying "nonaggression" is sufficient. We have ZERO support from this information to say that something was "non-aggressive".

(C) This is a weak, thus easy-to-support, claim. We need only point to one example of a behavior that is influenced by human culture: the last sentence tells us that humans react with violence because they’re conditioned by their culture.

(D) The first sentence tells us that, under normal conditions, the self-expression that’s good enough to survive is NON-violent (it’s DISTINCT from violence). (D) just paraphrases this idea.

(E) This is a stronger, more specific version of (C). We are justified in making this more sweeping claim because the last sentence tells us that humans react with violence ONLY because they’re conditioned by THEIR culture.

I agree with previous posters who don’t love (E), because what we know is that violent behavior - when caused by unpleasant stimuli - is only a product of cultural conditioning.

But it’s possible that violent behavior in reaction to pleasant stimuli has a different cause (genetically caused chemical imbalances, for example).

However, (E) at least has SOME support. LSAT probably thought we were going to interpret the last sentence as the anthropologist saying, "Here’s when violence occurs: in certain situations, in reaction to unpleasant stimuli, and only because of cultural conditioning".

But they probably didn’t realize how sharply we LSAT test takers would be reading this claim and see the ambiguity ... it could be interpreted as "In certain situations and in reaction to unpleasant stimuli, violence is a product of cultural conditioning."

It helps to remember that the test writers frequently don’t write perfect questions, and our job is to find the best, most supported answer. As we said before, there is ZERO support for saying that something is "nonaggressive". There is at least SOME support for saying that violence is a product of culture.

[asafezrati]

.

(A) I always clean up "Not all A are B" claims as "Some A are not-B". So this says "Some aggression is nonviolent". We can infer this from the first claim that "violence is an EXTREME form of aggression". If violence is an extreme form, then there must be other forms of aggression that aren’t extreme, that aren’t violent.

So when it is said that violence is AN extreme it is meant that violence covers ONLY that part of the spectrum and nothing else?

[ohthatpatrick]

That's correct.

You could say "lust is an extreme form of desire" and then get that "not all forms of desire are lustful" or say "hiding your murderous friend from the police is an extreme form of loyalty" and derive, "Not all loyalty involves shielding friends from police scrutiny".