Q19 - In an experiment, researchers played

[lichenrachel]

I didn't see any choice as the right answer for this one... Could someone explain to me why B strengthens the argument?

Thanks so much!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

This is a very challenging problem --

There is a subtle assumption here --

The author is assuming that because babies chose certain music, humans must have a biological preference for that music --

But could the babies have chosen that music for some other reason? We're told that the characteristic described is common to most music everywhere --

Could it be that the babies chose that music because it's the music they've heard before and are therefore more familiar with?

(B) eliminates this alternative possibility, and therefore strengthens the connection between premise and conclusion.

[cyruswhittaker]

I had narrowed this question down to A and B, ultimately choosing A because I felt that it helped to strengthen the connection by establishing that babies are just simply unique in a certain way that makes them more likely to pay attention to the intervals.

I feel that choice A helps to make explicit a subtle assumption as well, so maybe you could help me better see why B is the correct choice?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

I see what you are saying, and (A) is definitely attractive because it strengthens the idea that this preference does indeed exist.

The problem with (A) is how it relates to the "biological" part.

Why does the author use babies as evidence? To show that these preferences are innate.

When you think about it, where do you commonly see discussion of whether things are innate or not? Commonly, when we are talking about the difference between "what we are born with" and "what we develop" (nature / nurture, talent vs. hard work -- we see this comparison everywhere.)

(A) helps confirm that we do pay more attention to certain intervals (is this, by the way, an idea that needed to be strengthened? I don't think so--I don't think it was claimed or in doubt), but it doesn't really strengthen the idea that this is a biological predisposition -- by the time people are older, they could pay more attention maybe because they have learned to.

I hope that helps.

[zainrizvi]

I thought it was (A) because the argument went from "babies" in the premises to "humans". So if older children and adults did have the same results, it proved that there was nothing inherently special in the babies that led them to paying more attention. But I guess it doesn't really tackle the biological predisposition part...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Maybe a more useful way to look at the argument is from a conceptual framework. The argument identifies a strange finding. It then goes on to conclude an explanation for how/why that strange thing happened.

The argument's explanation is that it is nature that explains our predisposition to pay more attention to musical intervals with perfect octaves than to other intervals. The obvious alternative explanation would be nurture. To strengthen this argument, we should seek to eliminate the competing explanation - nurture. And this is accomplished in answer choice (B). Answer choice (A) simply perpetuates the phenomenon, but does not address the explanation of how/why the phenomenon is occurring.

Does that answer your question here?

[tzyc]

I can see why (B) is correct, but how about (C)?
I thought since it says"humans" (general), it may be helpful to say all babies from different countries-includes both advanced nations and developing nations-so that they can make the conclusion solely based on nature?
I wonder if it was strengthen except question, this would be excluded (stregthen the argument somewhat)?

Thanks.

[timmydoeslsat]

I can see why (B) is correct, but how about (C)?
I thought since it says"humans" (general), it may be helpful to say all babies from different countries-includes both advanced nations and developing nations-so that they can make the conclusion solely based on nature?
I wonder if it was strengthen except question, this would be excluded (stregthen the argument somewhat)?

Thanks.

I think C weakens the argument because it then shows the potential of these babies having previous exposure to these musical intervals. It puts doubt on the biological predisposition conclusion of the argument. It opens up the possibility for these babies to pay more attention to those intervals due to the fact that they have heard them before.

[man6q]

Another issue with A is that the people in the survey had a "general tendency to pay more attention" whereas the stimulus states that "the babies paid significantly more attention". I got tripped up by A the first time too but B is the best answer.

[samtheman234]

For this question, I eliminated A purely based on wording alone. The passage states "perfect octaves", while the wording for A just says "octaves".

Was this a good elimination to make or did I just get lucky?

I definitely see how reasoning alone could lead you to eliminate A, and this is probably a much safer approach.

[pewals13]

Hey guys:

I was wondering if someone could chime in to further explore (A). It seems to me that (A) strengthens by demonstrating that paying attention to the particular intervals is a permanent trait (a characteristic of an innate quality), and not perhaps the result of a developmental anomoly in babies (i.e. their cochleas aren't fully formed so those intervals sound particularly jarring).

With (B) I'm not sure I understand why previous exposure would really matter--I pay attention to good music whether I've heard it before or not.

I think the lesson here is that anytime you are bolstering a conclusion that explains a phenomenon by attributing it to innate biology, you want to prioritize answers that weaken conditioning as a competing cause. (A) fails to do this.

Anyone care to comment?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hi pewals13!

I think I see your reasoning for answer choice (A), but the problem with it is that your explanation doesn't actually address the "why." If you simplify the argument core, we end up with something along the lines of:

Evidence: A study finds that 6-month babies pay close attention to perfect octaves.

Conclusion: Humans have a biological predisposition to pay attention to perfect octaves.

This is a classic structure that you want to look out for in Logical Reasoning: Evidence (phenomenon), Conclusion (explanation). When you see this structure it's very important to consider alternative explanations. This question points right at the age-old debate on nature vs. nurture. The argument's explanation is that it's nature, but we should also consider the alternative explanation that nurture could explain the close attention paid to perfect octaves. The argument even slides in there, that perfect octaves are prevalent in most cultures around the world, making one possibly suspect that these 6-month olds could have been exposed to perfect octaves, and therefore nurture could be the explanation of the observed phenomenon.

Answer choice (B) rules out the competing explanation, and thereby strengthens the argument.

(A) maintains the phenomenon, but doesn't offer any insight as to "why."
(C) undermines the argument by suggesting that it could be nurture that explains the preference.
(D) is out of scope.
(E) undermines the argument by providing a possible alternative explanation.

Hope that helps!

[laura.bach]

I also missed this by picking (A) with similar reasoning to what's been stated beforehand (I didn't like the gap between "babies" and "humans").

I think another way to understand eliminating (A) is as follows:

For me, it comes down to sample size.

I thought (A) strengthened the argument because the conclusion is that humans have a predisposition for X, but only based off of studies done with babies. By adding in older children and adults, I thought we are getting a more representative sample of humans which would strengthen the argument.

However, in the argument, the LSAT writers hint that we already have a sufficient sample size (by LSAT standards). The test writers note that we have a "large, diverse" group of babies. Which, looking back on it now, leads me to believe that insufficient sampling/non-representative sample is not the weakness the LSAT writers are looking for us to address.

(B) on the other hand, as started beforehand, addresses another weakness in the conclusion which is the age-old correlation / causation confusion. Babies pay more attention to some types of intervals, and those intervals are present in most music. Which is causing which?
(B) says "the intervals already present in music are NOT causing the babies to pay attention to them". This strengthens the conclusion that babies paying more attention to some times of intervals are causing those intervals to crop up in music.

Feel free to correct me if you think my reasoning is misguided. Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I also missed this by picking (A) with similar reasoning to what's been stated beforehand (I didn't like the gap between "babies" and "humans").

I think another way to understand eliminating (A) is as follows:

For me, it comes down to sample size.

I thought (A) strengthened the argument because the conclusion is that humans have a predisposition for X, but only based off of studies done with babies. By adding in older children and adults, I thought we are getting a more representative sample of humans which would strengthen the argument.

However, in the argument, the LSAT writers hint that we already have a sufficient sample size (by LSAT standards). The test writers note that we have a "large, diverse" group of babies. Which, looking back on it now, leads me to believe that insufficient sampling/non-representative sample is not the weakness the LSAT writers are looking for us to address.

(B) on the other hand, as started beforehand, addresses another weakness in the conclusion which is the age-old correlation / causation confusion. Babies pay more attention to some types of intervals, and those intervals are present in most music. Which is causing which?
(B) says "the intervals already present in music are NOT causing the babies to pay attention to them". This strengthens the conclusion that babies paying more attention to some times of intervals are causing those intervals to crop up in music.

Feel free to correct me if you think my reasoning is misguided. Thanks!

Hey Laura, glad you joined the conversation on this one! I think you want to be careful, because I don't see reverse causation as the weakness of this argument.

Let's look at both answer choices (A) and (B).

(A) is incorrect because even though older children and adults have the same propensity to pay attention to perfect octaves, it doesn't address why they do so. And the conclusion is that the predisposition is biological (the nature explanation). This answer leaves open the possibility that the preference is actually based on previous exposure to perfect octaves (the nurture explanation).

(B) doesn't reverse the causal relationship, but rather rules out a competing explanation, thereby strengthening the argument's explanation for the preference of babies for music with perfect octaves.

Hope that's helpful!

[JeremyK460]

p: a study of a diverse group of babies
p: these babies gravitated more towards particular musical chords
p: these chords are common basically everywhere

c: humans have a bio-predisposition to gravitate towards those chords

the researchers made the correction for representativeness in population

the conclusion is about a bio-predisposition...
which means that this music stuff is ingrained in us...
which means "we don't need to be able to identify it, we already know it"

so these babies should be identifying this music stuff without already having been exposed to it