#14 - Over 90 percent of the human brain currently serves

[voodoochild]

I chose the correct answer on this one! However, I have a question about B.

I feel that the problem with B is that it's just a restatement of the conclusion with some words changed here and there.

Essentially, the conclusion says creativity ability to solve.

B is saying ~(problem is solved) ~(creativity) OR

Creativity problem solved.

The problem with B is that the conclusion is about "ability to solve", but B) talks about solving problems. --- big leap.

Is my understanding correct? Please help me

I cannot thank this forum for helping in solving LR problems. It's a godsend for me.

Thanks

[Adam Tyson]

Voodoo,

I think we're on familiar ground here, in that you are trying again to put this question into a conditional framework that isn't entirely appropriate. There are no conditional indicators in the conclusion to this argument. We could do as you are trying to do and re-word it to something like "if we have creativity and innovation, then we will have the ability to resolve", but even if we do, you have already hit on one of the two main problems with answer B, which is that is talks about "solving" rather than "ability to solve".

I think that even more important than that is the use of "only" in answer B. That's a pretty extreme choice of language, and there's nothing in the argument to suggest that tapping into the unused parts of our brains is the only way to gain the ability to solve those problems - just that it is one way to do it. If we were to try to put this into a conditional framework, answer B would be saying that the author mistakenly assumed that X is the ONLY thing sufficient for Y. The author didn't make that kind of conditional error here - if it was conditional at all, then all he did was posit a conditional relationship, and he said nothing to suggest that there could be no other circumstances under which Y could occur.

Adam

[lsnewbie]

Hello PS,
I have a question about these types of flaw questions. I understand we are supposed to find the flaw in the reasoning, but is there a situation where we ever question the evidence provided by the argument? For example in a question like this, we are told over 90 percent of the human brain currently serves no purpose because of the evidence seen in people with significant brain damage. Do we take that statement for what it is, as a valid statement, at face value? For the purpose of clarity, is there any reason to ever question the validity of the evidence provided in a flaw question? I find that is something that always throws me off. So I chose C when I took the test because I questioned the validity of the evidence (after all, who's to say 90 percent of the brain serves no purpose by just looking at a sample of people with brain damage), but when I reviewed the question, I assumed that the evidence provided was valid and chose E. I feel like I'm confusing myself somewhat in trying to figure out when to assume the contents of the stimulus as valid, when to question/not question the stimulus, and when to bring in outside information. Thanks for any guidance!
~JT

[Dave Killoran]

Hello PS,
I have a question about these types of flaw questions. I understand we are supposed to find the flaw in the reasoning, but is there a situation where we ever question the evidence provided by the argument?

Good question! The answer is: very rarely do you question the evidence (and really: hardly ever). Typically, they let the evidence stand as true. What gets questioned is the conclusion drawn from that evidence. so, they will allow causal statements, conditional, numerical facts, etc, stand as acceptable; it's where the author goes from there that becomes the focus.

Does that make sense? Please let me know. Thanks!

[glasann]

I chose (E) correctly because it felt like the most obvious flaw, however I didn't totally hate (A). Can you please give a little color around that?

Answer (A) states that "the argument presumes, without providing justification, that the effects of brain damage are always easily detectable."

Isn't it correct to say that's an assumption though? However I understand it's not really an assumption of the conclusion so much as an assumption for believing the premise that 90% of the human brain serves no purpose.

thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

I wouldn't say that answer A was an assumption at all in this case, glasann, because the author does not have to believe that the effects of brain damage are always easily detectable. This author might readily agree that sometimes it is hard to detect the effects - maybe even agree that they are always hard to detect - and still believe that we know enough to confidently claim that people with damage to 90% of the brain have no discernible adverse effects. Perhaps that knowledge came after a lot of hard work and study and research? It might not be easy, but perhaps we know enough now to make this argument.