#16 - Herpetologist: Some psychologists attribute complex

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (D)

The herpetologist in this stimulus takes issue with those who claim that reptiles are capable of complex reasoning, based on the following:

• Premise: Reptiles are incapable of major behavior alteration.
  
  Conclusion: Reptiles are incapable of complex reasoning.

The herpetologist must presume that these two conditions are linked, so in responding to this supporter assumption question, we should look for the answer choice which somehow provides the following link:

• Capable of major behavior change Capable of complex reasoning

The link would also be provided if the contrapositive is assumed to be true:

• Capable of complex reasoning capable of major behavior change

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Answer choice (D) provides the needed link. Again, if this choice is assumed (Capable of complex reasoning capable of major behavior change), then it is also true that (Capable of major behavior change Capable of complex reasoning). Thus this answer choice provides an assumption required by the herpetologist’s argument.

Incorrect answer choice (A) provides the following conditional statement:

• Capable of change capable of complex reasoning

This is the mistaken reversal of the assumption that we are looking for. None of the other answer choices deal with the two elements that we know will be required by this supporter assumption question. Answer choice (B) is incorrect because the stimulus does not involve explanation of all reptile behavior. Answer choice (C) is irrelevant, because there is no question about reptiles’ ability to alter their behavior. Answer choice (E) is also not relevant, because the stimulus does not deal with particular behaviors, but rather with the reptiles’ general ability to make major alterations to their behavior.

[voodoochild]

Team,
The conclusion is that ~alterations no complex behavior.

Can you please explain why E) is incorrect? Is it that the conclusion is not about a relationship between responses to stimuli and complex behavior.

Thanks

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Voodoochild,

Even if complex reasoning and responses to stimuli CAN both contribute to the same behavior, the argument could still be valid. The psychologists here are saying that responses to stimuli cannot completely account for some reptile behaviors, not that they don't partially contribute, and the herpetologist is refuting that by showing different evidence that reptiles aren't capable of complex reasoning. The herpetologist's argument relies on the understanding that being incapable of making major alterations in behavior must necessarily indicate being incapable of complex behavior; here, response to stimuli is simply not part of the argument, and therefore no assumption about response to stimuli (in relation to anything else) exists.

Does that help?

Thanks,
Emily
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

[voodoochild]

Thanks Emily for your response.
2 questions:

Question #1
Also, do you think that D) is a restatement of the conclusion? Essentially, the conclusion is nothing but a contrapositive of D). However, D) uses conditional language, whereas the conclusion has "since" indicator. I checked your book, and I am not sure whether "since" could be considered a causal indicator. I know that 'because' is a causal indicator.

Question#2
If I say that gobbling food causes gastric troubles, does it mean that the underlying assumption is that if I gobble food then I will have gastric trouble? That's a bit confusing.

Please help me


Thanks
Voodoo

[voodoochild]

Instructors,
When you find chance, can you please help me? I hope that this thread will not get buried in old threads. Hence, I thought of bumping it. My conscience is biting me for doing this activity, considering that these forums are free.

Thanks in advance for help.....

Voodoo Child

[Jon Denning]

Hey voodoo - let me jump in here. The conclusion is simply that reptiles are incapable of complex reasoning. So D isn't a restatement (or contrapositive of that). The way I see it is that for the author to conclude that No Alt Behavior --> No Complex Reasoning (last sentence), the assumption is that arrow, the connection. And that's what D gives us: Complex Reasoning --> Alt Behavior (contrapositive). So D provides a conditional relationship necessary for the conclusion in the last sentence.

Also, "since" isn't necessarily a causal indicator. It just sets up something as a reason for a belief/conclusion. "Next month must be October, since it is now September and October is the month that follows September." Nothing causal there. So be careful with that.

Finally, for your question #2, any causal argument (in LSAT terms) implies the cause will ALWAYS produce the effect. So if you say that gobbling food CAUSES gastric trouble, then any time you gobble food that effect must occur. So you could treat it almost as a conditional relationship, but be careful not to confuse the two, as their differences are tested and treating them similarly will cause problems.

[voodoochild]

Thanks Jon! I think that D) bridges the gap between premise and conclusion. I misread the last statement and assumed that the entire sentence is a conclusion.

Essentially, D) connects the premise with the conclusion. i.e. ~alter environment ~Complex reasoning.

Thanks again.

[Blueballoon5%]

In this question, the conclusion seems to have a conditional statement (with the sufficient indicator of "when"). However, the explanation from the student center states that the author is assuming this conditional statement and that the answer is a contrapositive of that assumption. But it doesn't seem like the conditional statement is an assumption because the author used a sufficient indicator. Therefore, it is not an assumption but rather something that is explicit... right?

help!

[Robert Carroll]

Blue,

The author never made explicit a connection between "capable of making major alterations in behavior" and "capable of complex reasoning" The former phrase is in the premise and the latter is in the conclusion. "When" is used in the example, so it's not involved in a conditional at all. There is no conditional explicit or assumed using that example statement. Note also that that example is not in the conclusion. The conclusion is the part of the last sentence after the last comma. The rest is a premise, as indicated by the word "since".

Robert Carroll

[lathlee]

hi. i don't understand why choice D) is the correct answer cuz if we use the assumption negation technique, it becomes "Even If reptiles were capable of complex reasoning, they would never be able to make major changes in their behavior."
so i don't see how this negated version of answer choice D) hurts the question's conclusion of "replies are incapable of making major alterations in their behavior.