#9 - Essayist: Practical intelligence is the ability to discover means to ends.

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion. The correct answer choice is (B).

The essayist's argument begins with premises defining practical intelligence as the ability to discover means to ends, and describing this ability as a skill that does not develop on its own.

The essayist concludes that someone who always and immediately gets what they want (someone never deprived of anything) can never acquire practical intelligence.

As with so many Justify questions, there is a missing link between the premises and the conclusion. The conclusion introduces new information, "never being deprived of anything (i.e. always/immediately getting what you want)," but there is nothing that ties this conclusion information to the premise idea of developing the skill of discovering means to ends. In other words, we need a link to show that never being deprived of anything you want means you will never develop the skill of discovering means to ends (and thus never develop practical intelligence). This link, which if provided will Justify the Conclusion, is our prephrase.

Answer choice (A): Similarly to answer choice E, answer choice A is out of the scope of the argument because it's speaking to a different situation than the one in the conclusion. In its contrapositive form, answer choice A asserts that if you do not have the help of others, then you cannot acquire a skill. But presumably a being who is never deprived of anything they want (who always immediately gets what they want) is someone who does have the help of others. Indeed, the argument wants to show that you need to develop the skill yourself (perhaps without help) in order to develop it. So answer choice A is speaking to a different situation than the one in the argument (and may even somewhat weaken the argument).

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. In a rather subtle and tricky way, answer choice B supplies the link we prephrased. First, imagine the contrapositive of answer choice B: if a skill is not needed, then it is not acquired. Now add that to the premises: if the "practical intelligence" skill of discovering means to ends is never needed (for example, because someone is never deprived of anything and so never NEEDS to discover the means to the ends they want), then it will not be acquired. This proves that someone who always immediately gets what they want without needing to discover means to ends will never acquire the skill of practical intelligence.

Answer choice (C): Answer choice C introduces a comparative notion (the "best" way to acquire the skill) when the argument is purely about absolutes (the skill not being acquired, period). Further, the answer itself does not supply a link between never being deprived of things and not developing the skill of discovering means to ends.

Answer choice (D): Answer choice D is subtly irrelevant to the stimulus argument. The stimulus argument is about developing (i.e. getting/acquiring) practical intelligence, concluding that a certain type of person will never develop that skill. Answer choice D is about how a being who already has practical intelligence will behave. Thus, when added to the premises, answer choice D cannot prove anything about who can or cannot acquire the skill.

Answer choice (E): Answer choice E is out of scope, speaking to a situation that the stimulus is not concerned with. In the stimulus, we want to prove what happens to practical intelligence if one is never deprived of anything one wants. Answer choice E is speaking to a situation in which one is always deprived of what one wants. Since this is a different situation than the stimulus is concerned with, it cannot prove (and indeed is irrelevant to) the conclusion.

[gwlsathelp]

Question type: justify

Diagram:

ability/practical intelligence skill
deprived of anything practical intelligence

contrapositive: practical intelligence deprived of anything

B) skill needed

This ties into the first premise ability/practical intelligence skill needed; ∴ ability/practical intelligence needed
The conclusion is convoluted, but is supposed to be equivalent to ∴ ability/practical intelligence needed. It also ties into the "a skill is something that does not develop on its own," because it develops when it is needed.
This caught me off-guard it's a weird typical justify question.

[Adam Tyson]

I would not have recommended diagramming everything here as a conditional relationship, gwlsathelp . There is nothing conditional - no "if this, then that" - about the statement that practical intelligence is a skill, so diagramming it as you did could be misleading and might lead one to fall into wrong answer choices. Avoid forcing things into conditional relationships when they are not conditional, and reserve those diagramming tools for true conditional statement, like the conclusion in this argument ("if there were a being...").

I would approach this question this way:

1) The author says that practical intelligence is a skill that does not develop on its own
2) The author concludes that a being never deprived of anything would never develop practical intelligence.

To justify that conclusion we need to connect "never deprived of anything" to "not develop the skill." So the next step is:

3) Prephrase "if never deprived, then not develop the skill to discover a means to an end." Build a bridge between the premise and the conclusion by connecting the "rogue" elements. Another way to look at that conditional connection is through the contrapositive: if one develops the skill to find a means to an end, one must have been deprived of something at some point. You can only figure out the means to ends if you need to do so because you have been deprived of those ends.

[anjalichhoudhary@gmail.com]

Hi,

I was stuck between B and C but ultimately chose C.

My paraphrase was that "the skill can't develop" on it's own and then "if a being was never deprived, it wouldn't develop intelligence, and thus not develop the skill." For my prephrase I had "if you develop the skill, then you were deprived."

Was C wrong because it uses the word "best" and a value judgement doesn't work in this? I'm still a bit confused on how I would turn my prephrase into answer B.

[Beth Hayden]

Hi Anjalich,

Your prephrase is right--the missing link here is that if you were never deprived of anything, you would never NEED to discover a means to an end (solve a problem), and thus you would never develop that practical intelligence. The problem here is that the stimulus doesn't explain why you can't build that skill even though it's not a necessity. Why aren't there other ways of developing practical intelligence besides being deprived of something and then being forced to figure it out?

Answer choice (B) fills in that gap. If you can only ever acquire a skill when it's an absolute necessity, then this reasoning makes sense. If skills are only ever acquired when you need them, then if you never actually need the skill (you're never deprived), you won't ever build it. It's impossible to build practical intelligence, which lines up with the "never" language in the conclusion.

Remember that this is a justify question, so we are looking for an answer choice that doesn't just strengthen the conclusion but actually proves it. Answer choice (B), all on its own, is enough to make this conclusion iron clad. Answer choice (C) absolutely helps the argument, but there are still some holes. Just because the BEST way to build this skill is to be deprived of something, that doesn't mean it's the ONLY way. The conclusion is a very strong statement, it says that if you aren't deprived of something you will never be able to develop that practical intelligence--there is no way for you to ever get there. Answer choice (C) still leaves some room for you to build practical intelligence through other methods, even if they aren't the "best" way of doing it.

Hope that helps!
Beth

[impawsible]

Hello! Could someone please describe why D is incorrect? I was stuck between B and D but chose D even though in the back of my mind, if it was added to the premise, it kind of sounds like circular reasoning. I had diagrammed this question like a user above did (which I now realize isn't the best move) and had gotten for answer choice D:

Being with Practical Intel (PI) - Through use of PI gets what wants

NOT through use of PI gets what wants - NOT Being with PI

Is D incorrect because it's (in a way) presupposing the conclusion? Or should I be thinking about this is a different way? Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

impawsible,

I think you're actually right that there's a circularity to the argument if you add answer choice (D) to it. The argument wants to prove that the kind of being discussed wouldn't have practical intelligence. The contrapositive of answer choice (D), as you noted, is saying something like "if a being doesn't get what it wants entirely through practical intelligence, then it doesn't have practical intelligence." The issue is...in the premises, what being doesn't get what it wants through practical intelligence? The premises don't give us any info on whether the being has or uses practical intelligence - that only enters into the argument at the conclusion step. So answer choice (D) is saying "If you already know this being doesn't get fulfilled via practical intelligence, then..." and we can stop considering the answer, because the point of the argument is that we don't know from the premises whether the being has or can have practical intelligence. The conditional in answer choice (D) would only help if we already knew the conclusion. Thus, it doesn't help at all.

Robert Carroll

[pineapplelover18]

I have read the responses but I want to try to tackle this question.

SO the premise gives us A -- B argument ( PI -- Skill (not develop on own)

and Conclusion is A -- C (if flipped into contrapositive: PI -- Deprived of things)

To connect we need a bridge between B -- C, in other words to close the dangling variable in the conclusion so our prophase is something like Skill -- deprived.

B is the only one that could work as it matches the preface. it has skill in sufficient and "needed" in necessary, which can be thought of as being deprived of something. You wouldn't need something if you had it so you are DEPRIVED. Also bc this is sufficient, and deprived can be thought of falling under needed, this would close up the hole in the argument.

[Dana D]

Correct! If PI is a skill, and we add in answer choice (B) that skills are only acquired if they are needed, then a being who has never needed anything will never develop a skill, and therefore will never be practically intelligent.