#17 - Human beings can exhibit complex, goal-oriented

[Sherry001]

Hello ;
Yes I viewed your post . I tried replying to it by stating that' I still don't get it but for some reason my post disappeared. Which is why I had to post it again .
So I think my issue is that I just don't see why we are proving an answer choice . Because I saw this as a assumption and used the negation technique but wasn't successful.

Sorry for the trouble!

[Jon Denning]

Hey Sherry,

This one, as Clay rightly noted, is a bit of a "monster" haha, so let me add to his excellent explanation and see if we can clear things up once and for all

In fact, why don't I just start from the beginning here and put together a full explanation—sometimes hearing it twice (or from a second source) is all it takes for things to suddenly click.

This is an assumption question, which means we'll be doing one of two things: we'll either be finding an answer choice that links new information in the conclusion with supporting info in the premises (Supporter), or we'll be finding an answer choice that defends the conclusion from a potential attack by showing that the attacking info doesn't exist/occur (Defender).

The conclusion here (second sentence) has the new idea of "intelligence," which makes this a Supporter Assumption and tells us we need to tie intelligence back to the details in the first sentence. How should we do that?

Well, we know from sentence 1 that exhibiting complex, goal-oriented behavior in humans doesn't require consciousness (i.e. conscious awareness of that behavior), and from that the author draws the conclusion that intelligence in other animals doesn't establish consciousness. So there must be some connection between intelligence (which doesn't imply consciousness) and complex, goal-oriented behavior (which also doesn't imply consciousness).

Answer choice (A) gives us that connection: if complex, goal-oriented behavior is always a sign of intelligence, and complex, goal-oriented behavior doesn't require consciousness, then it makes sense for the author to think intelligence isn't enough to prove consciousness (since you can clearly have intelligence without consciousness).

And what would happen if we negated (A)? We'd get "complex, goal-oriented behavior does not require intelligence," and the connection we needed between intelligence in the conclusion and behavior in sentence 1 is totally broken! We'd be left where we started, with intelligence floating untethered in the conclusion, and the argument a totally unproven mess. Since that negation is so damaging, the Assumption Negation technique works wonderfully to show us that (A) is indeed correct.

Finally, to clarify one other point: Clay notes the idea of "proving" the conclusion, which isn't so much an Assumption task as it is a Justify task...however two things are critical to note: (1) Supporter Assumptions often look, and behave, a lot like Justify, in that you're providing information to show how the author arrived at the conclusion (meaning there's a sense of "proof" involved), so hunt for that connecting piece!; (2) what Clay really means by that is that we're thinking about what the author would believe in order to feel his/her conclusion was true. What does the author assume in feeling this conclusion has been proven? That's the question. So I can totally understand why that might have been confusing at first—fortunately, as shown above, the Assumption Negation technique does work well for us here, as it will for any and all Assumption questions

Thanks, and please let me know if it's still unclear!

[Sherry001]

Thank you both ! I understand 100%, I had forgotten that assumption plays two roles ( supporter and defender) .

[lsat2016]

I diagrammed this as

~CB -> CA

I -> ~ CA

isn’t the gap here

I -> CB?

I don't understand how the answer choice A: CB -> I is correct.

Thank you

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Lsat2016,

Thanks for your question. This argument is a tough nut to crack.

Your diagramming is incorrect, and reflects an incorrect understanding of the conditional statements being made here. Without a correct understanding of the conditional reasoning present in the argument, one is unlikely ever to get the right answer for the right reasons.

Have you read the explanation immediately above your post? i think it answers your questions directly. Specifically, it provides the correct versions of the rules that you have diagrammed incorrectly, and explains how to arrive at those diagrams.

It also explains thoroughly why A is correct, which is another of your questions.

I hope reading it helps, let us know if there is a part of it that is unclear to you.

[lsat2016]

Hello,

Like the first and second posters, I used the “unless equation” because of the sentence’s use of “without” to diagram ~CB -> CA.

Could you also explain why "complex behavior does not imply consciousness" translates into CB ~CA instead of just CB ~CA?

Thank you

[Jon Denning]

Hey lsat,

Let me jump in here too and see if I can clear things up.

First, and this is happy news, I don't think diagrams are even necessary here. If you look at my explanation on the prior page you'll see that I (and others) walked through the logic in this question without having to sketch anything out--a relief to nearly anyone who finds overly-formalized logic a chore

The reason we show some diagrams above is to try to really illustrate the underlying mechanics of what's occurring between sentence 1 and sentence 2, and while that's sometimes a necessary device for walking people through it, I don't think it's an optimal approach to efficiently choosing answer choice (A) in this case. Instead, and if you read my last comment on this question you'll see this in more detail, if you can just recognize that the conclusion contains a new term, "intelligence," note that this is then a Supporter Assumption, and tie that new term back to the premise about complex, goal-oriented behavior, you're done! (A) is the only answer that shows a connection between complex, goal-oriented behavior and general intelligence (not just "intelligent human behavior" like in E), so it's immediately correct. Piece of cake!

But since your question is about diagramming, let me address that more directly as well.

Another reason I wouldn't diagram is because these sentences don't really exhibit traditional conditional reasoning, and thus evade clear diagramming. It seems to me that that's where you're getting hung up. That is, a statement like "No A without B" is easy to put together: A B.

But when you get into the realm of mere possibilities with words like "can exhibit" then suddenly strict diagramming based on general conditional guidelines becomes trickier (and, honestly, a whole lot less valuable). If it was "cannot exhibit," or "always exhibit," then you'd be in better shape, but this is just way too soft for a hard-case arrow ( ).

Consider the first sentence stated in a synonymous, but maybe easier to understand way:

"Some humans' complex, goal-oriented behavior may not necessarily be done consciously."

Is that the sort of thing you'd diagram? Not me. It's too soft, repeatedly. Really it's telling you that something is NOT a necessary condition—conscious awareness isn't required—meaning there may not be a relationship to even show! [bold to emphasize that this is arguably all you need to realize to see why diagrams fail us here]

Instead, the first sentence tells us two things, let's call them A and C, aren't connected, and the conclusion tells us that means another thing, let's call it B, isn't connected to C either. How can we prove that B and C aren't connected just because A and C aren't connected? Show that A and B are connected: A B . That's all that happens here.

The takeaway then is be careful with trying to make things more mechanical, more absolute, than they really are. It's an extremely common mentality to fall into, and this is a test that'll repeatedly make you pay for it.

I hope that helps!

[lsat2016]

Thank you so much! Your second explanation made things way easier to understand.

I have some follow up questions.

First, I wasn’t aware that I should be wary of drawing arrows for language that merely indicates a possibility. So are you saying that if the sentence says something like “Jane can wear a dress” or “Jane might wear a dress” then I should see it as a mere statement and not a conditional relationship because the conditional does not always follow?

Second, your explanation clicked for me when you said “ A and C, aren't connected, and the conclusion tells us that means another thing, let's call it B, isn't connected to C either. How can we prove that B and C aren't connected just because A and C aren't connected? Show that A and B are connected: A ->B . That's all that happens here.”.
However, is it possible for the answer choice to be correct if it said that B->A or even B<->A since there doesn’t seem to be any logical order between A and B. For example, I can see how the conclusion would also make logical sense if the answer choice said "Complex goal oriented behavior and intelligence are the same" (even though that doesn't make too much sense in the "real world").

Thank you so much!!

[Jon Denning]

No problem! Happy to hear it helped

Let me see if we can get your questions answered.

First, I wasn’t aware that I should be wary of drawing arrows for language that merely indicates a possibility. So are you saying that if the sentence says something like “Jane can wear a dress” or “Jane might wear a dress” then I should see it as a mere statement and not a conditional relationship because the conditional does not always follow?

Yes, those statements are far too uncertain to warrant diagrams. Conditionality is about absolute relationships—"any dress Jane wears will be blue," or "if Jane attends the event she'll wear a dress"—whereas the examples you give are merely possibilities and thus don't tell us anything with complete certainty. Consider what they mean (the possibilities they allow), but I see no need to try to diagram.

However, is it possible for the answer choice to be correct if it said that B->A or even B<->A since there doesn’t seem to be any logical order between A and B. For example, I can see how the conclusion would also make logical sense if the answer choice said "Complex goal oriented behavior and intelligence are the same" (even though that doesn't make too much sense in the "real world").

This is a little less black and white. Would the B A work (Intelligence Complex Behavior)? It could, but often what you see is an answer that gets you TO the conclusion's new element, "intelligence." So it makes sense to say that complex behavior shows/requires intelligence because then the properties of the first (complex behavior doesn't need conscious awareness) are going to apply to at least some of the second (some intelligent animals don't need conscious awareness). That's a great fit with what our conclusion says.

Would the double arrow work? Again, possibly, because that would at least show the new element in the conclusion comes from the premise (the A B includes A B, after all). But I'd be slightly surprised to see the test makers use a double when all they need is a single, since Assumption questions are about the bare minimum: assumptions don't include more than what is necessary, so if a single arrow would do it a double likely goes too far.

Anyway, and perhaps above all, I'm really pleased to report that we don't need to dig quite that deep to find the right answer here haha

[avengingangel]

Whoah, yeah, curse this question!

It took me SO long to realize that intelligence has to be a nec. condition for complex, goal-oriented behavior in order for this argument to make sense. It's funny how after you finally see that, you realize how SIMPLE this question is! Can you all point me to similar questions like this, that I can use for practice?? Whatever characteristics/construction of this question that made it so challenging to many, replicated in other questions ??? That would be really helpful.

Thanks!