Q5 - Researchers have found that, hours

[bnuvincent]

I found this one tricky. ABCD all seem right to me, or rather I don't know what to look about in the problem. I found if negated, A seems to hurt the stimulus worst, can I depend on this ?

Thanks~

[noah]

That technique - negating an answer - works for assumption questions, not this sort of question, where you're asked to explain a phenomenon (one of the LSAT's favorite words!).

What we need to explain is how or why would infants be able to distinguish faces from other images. (A) provides a reason -- if the skill is innate, it explains why infants, hours after birth, already have this characteristic.

(B) is out of scope - we're not talking about whether an infant finds it interesting. If the faces are more interesting and that's why the infants stare at them, than it's not because they're faces, it's because they're interesting!

(C) is incorrect because it doesn't explain why an infant - hours after birth - would know the difference.

(D) is similar to (B) in that it focuses on preference, not the ability to distinguish.

(E) is similar to (C) -- it's something that would have to be learned.

Does that clear it up?

[bnuvincent]

Oh, it helps a lot.


Thx again ~

[danielalfino]

Hey Noah, I am still a little confused by this question. Based on your explanation of the answer choices, we are meant to equate "hours after birth" with an inability to learn a skill. I took that to mean the opposite because I thought that something that took time (even if its measured in hours) must be something that is learned and not "innate" which I believe means existing from the point of birth and not "hours" after birth. Thus, I thought the answer was either C or E. How can the LSAT justify "hours" as meaning no time at all?

Dan

[noah]

Good point! There's actually another reason that (C) is wrong. To make (C) explain the result, we'd then need to assume that an association with comfort and nourishment leads to longer stares at the person/thing that comforts and nourishes. Perhaps babies feel comfortable with those things and don't stare, but are nervous about ovals and thus stare at them for a while.

(E) has a similar gap. What does it matter if babies have associated voices with faces? Do they have an attachment to faces? Does it make them stare?

Thanks for pushing me to clarify that.

As for your issue with equating hours with no time at all, I don't believe it requires that to eliminate (C) and (E), nor to support (A). It's just that (A) best explains the phenomenon while the others don't. If the correct answer were to be based on babies learning something, the answer choice would probably have emphasized that babies learn whatever that it very quickly.

But, with the LSAT, it's always dangerous territory to start wondering what the answer would be if . . .

[nflamel69]

Hey Noah, while I got this question right, I'm confused about the paradox, or there lackof. What exactly is the paradox here? I treated this one more like an inference question. And only the first sentence seemed to be relevant. I thought the second sentence is useless. Sorry for the ramble, its quite late up where I am

[noah]

Hey Noah, while I got this question right, I'm confused about the paradox, or there lackof. What exactly is the paradox here? I treated this one more like an inference question. And only the first sentence seemed to be relevant. I thought the second sentence is useless. Sorry for the ramble, its quite late up where I am

There isn't an explicit paradox here. Instead, we're expected to explain how is it that babies can recognize faces so quickly after birth. We could say that there's an implied issue of whether they have had time to learn the skill--and that's the issue that (A) addresses.

Tell me if that doesn't clear it up, wherever you are in the world...

[Fleetwood_J_Thomas]

I narrowed the answers down to (A) and (E). I understand how (A) is correct. I have one question, would it be accurate to say that (E) is wrong (Not only for the reasons given above) because the answer places to much emphasis on 'human faces' and not 'facial patterns'? Perhaps the drawing shown to the baby was the face of a dog or cat and not a human? (A) would still hold true, right?

Thanks,
Thomas F.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think it's fair to say it raises our skeptical eyebrow even higher.

I'm not SUPER picky on Explain questions. I realize it doesn't say that infants were shown pictures of HUMAN faces, but that would be an unlikely "Gotcha!" for a trap answer to have.

Answers don't have to be perfect to "HELP" explain.

f.e.
I brought out the tray of cookies and Eddie started jumping up and down.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain Eddie's behavior.

(A) Eddie LOVES chocolate chip cookies and gets demonstrably excited for them.

==========

Not a perfect answer, because we don't know for sure that the cookies on the tray were chocolate chip, but (A) still HELPS to give us a way to explain Eddie's behavior. We at least have a working theory, where we didn't before we read (A).

It's still a good nuance to notice, and if it helped you decide that (E) smelled bad, let's embrace it.

[PepitoH243]

It doesn't make sense at all. If the recognition is innate then they should be able to distinguish faces the minute they are born not hours later. In my opinion C makes more sense because whenever they see a face, babies will try to get comfort or nourishment from them. But if they see something else then they do not have interest because they don't know what to get from them.

[snoopy]

It doesn't make sense at all. If the recognition is innate then they should be able to distinguish faces the minute they are born not hours later. In my opinion C makes more sense because whenever they see a face, babies will try to get comfort or nourishment from them. But if they see something else then they do not have interest because they don't know what to get from them.

You're assuming that babies can see the minute after they are born. Maybe they need to adjust to the light and oxygen etc. before their vision clears hours after birth. Perhaps it's not 100% proof (if it was innate, you'd have to differentiate faces immediately), but for Explain the Paradox questions, you don't need an explanation that is 100% proof.

For C, you have to assume babies desire comfort and nourishment - all within a few hours after birth. Because C doesn't explain HOW infants associate human faces with comfort and nourishment within that time frame, it doesn't explain the paradox.

[DavidM254]

It doesn't make sense at all. If the recognition is innate then they should be able to distinguish faces the minute they are born not hours later. In my opinion C makes more sense because whenever they see a face, babies will try to get comfort or nourishment from them. But if they see something else then they do not have interest because they don't know what to get from them.

You're assuming that babies can see the minute after they are born. Maybe they need to adjust to the light and oxygen etc. before their vision clears hours after birth. Perhaps it's not 100% proof (if it was innate, you'd have to differentiate faces immediately), but for Explain the Paradox questions, you don't need an explanation that is 100% proof.

For C, you have to assume babies desire comfort and nourishment - all within a few hours after birth. Because C doesn't explain HOW infants associate human faces with comfort and nourishment within that time frame, it doesn't explain the paradox.

To me, C.) is the best answer because learning takes into account the stipulation on time provided in the stimulus. I believe “hours after birth” is more of an implication than an assumption on my part, that the behavior is not *innate* as stated in A.) I believe that in the same way you have to assume that eyesight is something present before learning this behavior, you can also assume that eyesight is not present, or something of the sort.

To me A.) ignores some previously provided information, and a subtle emphasis on time, ergo, referring to something not innate.

If you make the argument that E.) also mentions a learned behavior as a result of the baby experiencing a stimulus response, the question stem does not mention sound or other senses, nor does E.) provide the reasoning for linking human voices to human faces specifically when babies can see other things while hearing human voices and develop no recognition of other objects. It does not explain the importance of the human voice.

It also says in C.) that comfort and nourishment are necessities meaning that this is not assumed.

[smiller]

Answers (A), (C), and (E) are all appealing, which isn't an unusual situation on the LSAT. We're asked for the answer that most helps to explain the ability described in the stimulus.

The difference between these answers boils down to the difference between an innate ability—one that we're born with—and a learned ability. It might take a baby months to learn something, or it might only take hours, or minutes, but there is some element of time involved in learning.

For choice (C) to explain the ability, we need to know how long it takes for infants to learn to associate faces with comfort and nourishment. Does it take minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? We aren't given that information, so we don't actually know if choice (C) explains a behavior that's observed within hours of birth.

Choice (E) has a similar problem, since it's also about an ability that is learned, and we aren't given any information about how long it takes to learn this.

We don't run into this problem with choice (A) because it involves an ability that is innate, not learned. If the ability is innate, it's very possible that babies are able to exercise this ability as soon as they're able to see. We don't have to wonder how long it takes for them to learn it.

So, choice (A) eliminates a potential complication that could significantly affect choice (C) and choice (E). That's why choice (A) does the most to help explain the ability.

If the recognition is innate then they should be able to distinguish faces the minute they are born not hours later.

If the ability is innate, and babies can distinguish faces the minute that they are born, then they should still be able to do it a few hours later, right? There's no contradiction or dilemma there.

The stimulus never states exactly when babies start to display this ability. The point of the stimulus is that babies exhibit this behavior very, very soon after birth. Because it's happening so soon after birth, an innate ability is a more likely explanation than a learned ability, especially when we're given no information about how long it takes for the learned ability to develop.