#15- Humans are supposedly rational: in other words, they

[voodoochild]

PrepTest 54 - June 2008 LSAT Answers & Explanations - LR » Section #2

I am having trouble with this question. I tend to miss a majority of "flaw" questions. Can you please explain why C is incorrect? Also, what's the issue with "supposedly" ? I didn't quite get it.

Thanks

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your question. It would be helpful if you expanded a bit--how did you break down the stimulus, for example, and why did you find answer choice C appealing?

Thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Sure Steve. Here's my thought process:

What's the author trying to say?

Humans are not superior to animals.

Ok. why?
Their actions are not rational.

Why?
Because they knowingly do 'bad' stuff even though they are generally (or supposedly) believed to be rational or logical-thinkers. ==> fact

What's the flaw?
I see why E is correct. Doing bad stuff in one way doesn't necessarily prove that humans are irrational in general. It could be one of those activities where the benefits outweigh losses. Essentially, the author is attacking the link between generality and specificity.


I was confused between B and C. I could think that B) is incorrect because the premise states that humans are "supposedly" rational. HEnce, we cannot question that. However, C is tricky because the author's conclusion is that Humans are not superior to animals because their acts are not rational. What if the animals' acts are not rational too? What if the bad stuff that humans do is also done by animals? That's where I was lost.

Can you please help me? Appreciate your response.


Thanks
Voodoo

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response. As you said, based on presumed self-awareness of irrationality on the part of humans, the author concludes that humans are not superior to animals (meaning that animals are at least as good, maybe even better than humans).

Thus, in concluding that humans are not superior, it's irrelevant whether animals are "just as bad as humans" (equally irrational perpetrators), or better.

Tricky one--let me know whether this makes sense.

Thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Thus, in concluding that humans are not superior, it's irrelevant whether animals are "just as bad as humans" (equally irrational perpetrators), or better.

Can you please help me with this part? I am not 100% sure.

Thanks for your help.

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response.

Again, the author's conclusion is that humans are not superior to animals.

Your question:

What if the animals' acts are not rational too? What if the bad stuff that humans do is also done by animals?

What if they are? What if animals are just as bad as humans? Does that hurt the author's conclusion? does it show that humans really are superior? No--that is why answer choice C does not describe the flaw in this one.

Let me know whether that makes sense--thanks!

~Steve

[voodoochild]

Steve,
A couple of thoughts> I think that I am getting it now.

#1-
If I say that "a camry is not better than a truck" - It doesn't matter whether the truck is as good as a camry because "no worse" = (as good as OR worse than).

However, wouldn't it hurt author's argument if I say that a truck is worse than a camry. Essentially, animals are worse than humans, in terms of their rationality? If animals are worse than humans => humans are better. Correct?

#2-
Secondly, I have also noticed that "flaw" questions could have an incorrect answer choices, answer choices that may not be true. They seem to be different from traditional "Weaken" answer choices in which the answer choices either strengthen, weaken or are irrelevant. Am I correct? Why am I saying this?

If we closely analyze this problem, A - relies crucially on "internally" contradictory definition...Does it? No. Not in my opinion.

B-the stimulus doesn't take for granted that humans are aware that their acts are irrational. In fact, the stimulus states that humans' acts are irrational.

C-As discussed above - it doesn't hurt author's conclusion. (could be irrelevant)

D-presumes without offering justification -> completely wrong. author doesn't presume that humans are no worse than animals. he concludes that humans are not better than animals.

Am I on the right track? Can you please elaborate on the thoughts above and my solution? Appreciate your help.

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your questions.

In response to the first, you are correct--and if you could somehow prove that animals were inferior to humans, you would be proving humans to be superior. The problem is that with regard to our previous discussion, the author doesn't need to prove that animals are also guily of irrationality: even if animals are equally irrational perpetrators, that only puts animals on equal ground. And if animals are not equally irrational, that makes them superior.

There is nothing mentioned in the stimulus that would potentially prove animals to be inferior.

Does that make sense?

As for your inquiry regarding flaw questions, you are exactly right--the authors of the LSAT tend to include among the incorrect answer choices flaws that inaccurate and often entirely unrelated to the stimulus.

I hope that's helpful--let me know. Thanks!

~Steve

[Nina]

Q15
Although answer B sounds understandable, but since the stimulus mentioned that "humans knowingly pollute,..." can we still infer that they may do it while not aware of its consequences (its irrationality)?
As for answer A, I do think the word "rationality" contains different significance: in the sentence "Humans are supposedly rational:... have a capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior", the word "rational" can be understood as opposed to "purely instinctive behavior"; but in the last sentence: "Thus, humans are not rational at all", "rational" more implies the moral responsibility. Thus I think it relies on ambiguous definition.

Thanks a lot!

[Nikki Siclunov]

With answer choice (B), there is no evidence that the author makes this assumption. Even if humans were not aware of the irrational nature of their acts, the conclusion would not be any weaker. All we know from the argument is that humans knowingly pollute, i.e. we know that we pollute. That does not necessarily mean that we also know how irrational our actions are. Perhaps we believe that the benefits of polluting outweighs the costs, i.e. we assume that our acts are rational?

As far as answer choice (A) goes, the author defined "rational" as "a capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior." The last sentence deems humans irrational because we knowingly pollute, i.e. we do not exhibit the capacity for well-considered behavior. There is no internal contradiction here, simply a slight shift in meaning - which answer choice (E) captures well enough. Your interpretation of "rational" at the end of the argument as conveying a moral responsibility falls somewhat outside the scope of the argument. And even if you read it that way, this shift in focus does not amount to an "internal contradiction" (which is what answer choice A seems to imply).