#14 - Pratt: Almost all cases of rabies in humans come from

[Dana D]

Answer choice (C) might weaken, but it might not. Most animals may not include bats. In fact, every type of animal besides bats could be included in this 'most', in which case answer choice (C) would be true but still wouldn't weaken the argument here. When you get down to two answer choices as you did here, look for those small nuances - answer (B) weakens more and is the correct answer choice because (C) has this possibility of not weakening the stimulus at all. The test makers know you will assume 'most' includes the animal in question here, so you have to remind yourself that this may not be the case.

[benndur]

Answer choice (C) might weaken, but it might not. Most animals may not include bats. In fact, every type of animal besides bats could be included in this 'most', in which case answer choice (C) would be true but still wouldn't weaken the argument here. When you get down to two answer choices as you did here, look for those small nuances - answer (B) weakens more and is the correct answer choice because (C) has this possibility of not weakening the stimulus at all. The test makers know you will assume 'most' includes the animal in question here, so you have to remind yourself that this may not be the case.

Doesn't B) have a similar problem? Rabid bats being much more aggressive than normal bats doesn't automatically make them a threat. What if most bats are normally extremely timid creatures that would never bite a human? Then, they could be much more aggressive (posturing, displaying outwardly aggressive behaviour) without engaging in any biting behaviour.

If we exclude the qualifier of "normal conditions" (for learning's sake), even though it's possible that bats are not included in "most animals" doesn't this still weaken the argument by probability?

Like if I say, "I studied really hard so it's likely I'm going to become an astronaut" and someone says, "It's great that you studied hard, but the vast majority of people don't become astronauts" doesn't this still weaken my argument purely as a statistical rebuttal?

I feel like these two points on their own (rabid bats being much more aggressive than other bats vs. most animals with rabies rarely bitting) are pretty similar in the extent that they weaken the argument.

The main reasons I think B) is better is that it adds that rabid bats are less mobile, so they are more likely to stay inside these buildings and be a prolonged risk, thus necessitating their removal. More importantly, (I didn't see any comment about this) the qualifier "under most conditions" basically means we can ignore the rest of the statement since we are not worried about normal conditions, we are worried about when they have rabies, or in an abnormal condition.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi benndur,

This may be a case where you may be overthinking the question or else trying to come up with problems with Answer B that aren't really there.

The main reason given in the argument for why bats don't need to be removed from buildings is that they are "shy animals that rarely bite."

Answer B directly attacks that premise by pointing out that, while normal bats may be shy and rarely bite, rabid bats are "much more aggressive." The definition of "aggressive" most relevant to this argument is "ready to attack or confront." If an animal is described as aggressive, that is generally understood to mean that it may attack. This directly attacks/challenges the premise given in the argument, which definitely weakens the argument.

As for Answer C, without knowing how bats compare to most animals, we cannot determine what effect if any this answer has on the argument. For example, a statement that most reptiles are not venomous does not weaken the fact that cobras are venomous reptiles. Even if the answer had said that most animals with rabies don't bite people, rabies could affect bats differently than most other animals.

[lsatstudent99966]

I ultimately chose (B), but I am still struggling a bit to eliminate (C), even after reading the explanations.

Here is my thought process for (C):

Based on common sense (?), no one would think it's OK to have a rabid dog, cat, or raccoon in their home. Common sense tells us that most of these rabid animals we're familiar with will bite.

We're not familiar with bats. The argument tells us that a normal bat rarely bites, and uses this to claim that there is little justification for urging the removal of bats.

But (C) says that most rabid animals don't bite under normal conditions either.

So it seems that (C) + our common sense refutes the argument this way: "So what if bats rarely bite under normal conditions? Normal conditions are irrelevant and unrelated to how an animal behaves under rabid conditions. Most rabid animals rarely bite under normal conditions. But common sense tells us that most of them are still dangerous when they're rabid.

In other words, (C) seems to undermine the argument by showing that "normal conditions"—a premise of the argument—is not relevant.

Can someone please correct my thinking? Thank you very much!

[Amber Thomas]

Hi LSATStudent99966!

Here's what Answer Choice C tells us: most rabies-carrying species of animals (i.e. dogs, raccoons, etc.) don't bite under normal circumstances (i.e. when they are not rabid). You're right that Pratt saying that bats don't generally bite under normal circumstances isn't the most relevant to his argument-- we don't care about normal circumstances, we only care about when they are rabid, and capable of transmitting the disease. However, Answer Choice C is just as irrelevant to our assessment of his argument. Sure, other rabies-carrying species may also not be likely to bite under normal circumstances, but that doesn't indicate whether or not Pratt is right that the increased concern around bats is undue. It's just a neutral statement.

I hope this helps!