#5 - Taste buds were the primary tool early humans used for

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[coolbeans747]

Why is E the right answer?

[Alex Bodaken]

coolbeans747,

Thanks for the question! (E) is the credited answer, quite simply, because it best describes the flaw made in the argument, which could be best characterized as taking some evidence that a position is true to prove that the position is true. The author does provide some evidence that the reason humans can distinguish between sour, bitter, sweet and salty is connected to early humans' use of taste buds to test healthfulness of foods, but that evidence does not rule out other possible elements that could have contributed to humans' ability to distinguish between these tastes. Because her flaw is extrapolating from the that "partial explanation" of the phenomenon to a "complete explanation" of the phenomenon, without explaining why, (E) is the correct answer choice as that is what (E) says she does.

Hope that helps,
Alex

[Lily123]

I get a little thrown off when I see a sufficient/necessary answer choice like A. I didn't pick it but it always slows me down because I think about what would/could be sufficient/necessary (even though this argument has no conditional reasoning).

My question is more general: If there is NO conditional reasoning in the stimulus, can I confidently eliminate ANY answer choice referring to necessary/sufficient conditions?

[Brook Miscoski]

Lily,

It's difficult to answer a question about the LSAT with an absolute rule. Instead, I will give an answer that should suffice:

If the stimulus does not contain any conditional reasoning, and you are doing a Family 1 question, you will experience substantial gain and be very unlikely to experience harm by eliminating choices that concern conditional reasoning.

I follow this rule and have yet to experience harm.

[Lily123]

Thank you!

[Lily123]

If the stimulus does not contain any conditional reasoning, and you are doing a Family 1 question, you will experience substantial gain and be very unlikely to experience harm by eliminating choices that concern conditional reasoning.

I follow this rule and have yet to experience harm.

I just came across this: http://www.powerscore.com/lrbible/conte ... Causes.pdf

I’m wondering how likely is it for a Family 1 question that contains Causal Reasoning (but NO conditional reasoning) to have a credited answer that refers to “necessary” and/or “sufficient”? Have you ever come across something like this?

[Adam Tyson]

Like Brook, I shy away from absolute rules for this test, because the authors are always devising new ways to challenge us. While I cannot recall one at this time, I wouldn't be surprised to find a couple questions over the last 28 years that used words like "sufficient" and "necessary" in a correct Must Be True answer where the argument was causal and not conditional. I would, however, expect that such an answer would also have causal language, as in the section you just shared (sufficient to cause, necessary cause, etc). Possible, but rare. Analyze each answer on its own merits, rather than relying on rules about what has always been the case in the past, and you should be able to cut through any tricks like that.

[JocelynL]

coolbeans747,

Thanks for the question! (E) is the credited answer, quite simply, because it best describes the flaw made in the argument, which could be best characterized as taking some evidence that a position is true to prove that the position is true. The author does provide some evidence that the reason humans can distinguish between sour, bitter, sweet and salty is connected to early humans' use of taste buds to test healthfulness of foods, but that evidence does not rule out other possible elements that could have contributed to humans' ability to distinguish between these tastes. Because her flaw is extrapolating from the that "partial explanation" of the phenomenon to a "complete explanation" of the phenomenon, without explaining why, (E) is the correct answer choice as that is what (E) says she does.

Hope that helps,
Alex

Is it safe to say that in LR stimuli, more often than not, when this type of answer choice appears its probably right? Given that LR stimuli only contain a few lines, there is not enough evidence to prove any position with absoluteness.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Jocelyn,

I'd be a little careful with that, only because you need some very specific language in the conclusion to validate an answer choice like E. Since the answer choice says that the conclusion offers a "complete explanation," you need language in the conclusion that suggests the author thinks of the explanation as a "complete" one. In this case, the answer works, because the conclusion says that our ability to clearly distinguish certain tastes "is completely explained by" the need to test. But this would be a wrong answer if the conclusion had used language like "is in part explained by," or "is at least partially explained by," or "has as one of its causes," etc. So watch that the language of the answer choice accurately describes the level of certainty of the conclusion/premises. As long as you keep an eye on that, you'll be able to distinguish when this is the correct answer.

I hope this helps!