#11 - Sometimes when their trainer gives the hand signal

[8scn]

Hello

Why is B a better answer than E? My reasoning for E is: if the behaviours are exhibited by dolphins in their natural habitat, it would mean that the dolphins didn’t learn those behaviours, which supports the conclusion.

[Nikki Siclunov]

This is a causal argument:

Cause: Higher cognitive functions (not learned behavior)

Effect: Observed dolphin behavior

(E) is attractive, but incorrect. Even if some of the behaviors mentioned are exhibited by dolphins in their natural habitat, it is still possible that they are learned responses to a some naturally occurring stimulus (such as current variability, mating or predatory pursuits, etc.). Simply put, (E) does not strengthen the conclusion that dolphins are capable of higher cognitive functions that may include the use of language and forethought.

(B) does - if dolphins exhibit complex new responses to the hand signal, then clearly their responses are not learned. This makes it a lot more probable that the author's conclusion is correct.

[moshei24]

I understand why (B) works, because it shows that they are able to do new responses that could not have been learned before - that's what "new" means.

But why doesn't (E) work? I could see why (B) is better - it applies more to the situation as hand, but (E) shows us that dolphins who haven't been trained can do these things. Or is that just it? We have to add an extra assumption about dolphins in their natural habitat - that they've never been trained before? And because we need this extra assumption, which we don't have, (E) is a much weaken strengthen response?

Usually, in a strengthen question, there's an inherent assumption that could be used to strengthen the stimulus. I don't really see one in here that is necessary. You don't have to assume that the dolphins have done actions that display their higher cognitive functions. The stimulus is only saying that they're capable of of it. Is that true? There is no inherent assumption that the author makes that if vocalized would strengthen the argument?

Clarification on this question would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Actually, the inherent assumption is that these behaviors were the result of higher cognitive function. So there is an inherent assumption. And for that reason that answer choice that shows that they do this, which is (B) is the best answer.

(E) is wrong because we don't know if they were trained before being sent into their natural habitat. We would have to assume that when they did those behaviors in their natural habitat, it was without them being taught them for that answer to work

...Or is (E) wrong because doing them in their natural habitat doesn't necessarily mean that they are the result of higher cognitive function. They may just be natural things that they are born able to do.

(B) is telling us that the new responses are complex. Plus, they are new, which means they weren't things they were innately able to do.

Sorry, about the many replies analyzing my question. Clarification on what of what I said is correct and what isn't would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Hey Moshe,

The author of this stimulus points out that when dolphins get the hand signal to "do something creative," the dolphins' responses vary. The author concludes that this varied response indicates higher cognitive functions.

The stimulus is followed by a strengthen question, so the correct answer choice will be the one that most strengthens the author's argument. Correct answer choice B provides that the dolphins often exhibit complex responses to the referenced hand signal. This strengthens the author's conclusion that the dolphins' behavior is more than simple learned stimulus response.

Answer choice E provides that "some" (that is "at least one") of the behaviors mentioned are exhibited in the dolphins' natural habitat. But since we're talking about the dolphins' response to the hand signal from their trainer, that presumes that even the ones in their natural habitat have been trained.

But let's assume for the moment that the dolphins in their natural environment hadn't been trained. Varied responses among wild dolphins--in response to a hand signal that they haven't been taught--would not really strengthen the case for higher cognitive function.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know.

~Steve

[moshei24]

How do you see that the behaviors exhibited in their natural habitat are in response to their trainer? It says, "Some of the behaviors mentioned." Wouldn't that be referring to the behaviors that were done? Not the behaviors being done as a result of seeing that signal? The behaviors are responses to the signal; they aren't inherently connected to the signal. I'm missing where you got the assumption that what those actions in their natural habitat are assumed to be the result of being trained or in result to seeing that signal. Why can't the case be that they're doing the behaviors on their own?

I thought that because we don't know if they've been trained or not, makes it that that answer is not as good as (B). Also, because if they're doing them in their natural habitat, it might just be that they were born knowing how to do those things, so it wasn't the result of higher cognitive function, but rather just innate knowledge. So both of those thing would be possible issues with (E), yet if (B) wasn't there, (E) still does strengthen it somewhat because it shows that there's a possibility that they learned those actions on their own in the wild.

Please, explain. Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your response.

The author is impressed by the fact that the dolphins can respond to the command "do something creative together" by doing something creative!

If the behavior that took place in the natural environment wasn't in response to the hand signal, then that would render this choice irrelevant, wouldn't it? The author is not so impressed by the dolphins's ability to swim in tandem; the author is impressed that the dolphins vary their responses when signaled to be creative.

I hope that's helpful! Give it some thought and let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[moshei24]

So the point that author is trying to make is that the dolphins could do something creative in response to the signal? That it isn't just a learned response?

So in the wild, them doing something creative wouldn't help anyway, because the author's point is that the signal causes them to do something creative, not that they have the ability to do so.

So the conclusion is, "These behaviors are not simply learned responses to a given stimulus"? That's what we're trying to strengthen, and not that they're capable of complex things?

So by showing that the dolphins often exhibit complex new responses to the hand signal, we're showing a time where they do it, which strengthens the argument that the other behaviors are complex, too?

I'm still a little confused.

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your reply,

Simple stimulus response is: the bell is ringing, so the dog comes for food; in response to a certain command, a certain act is performed. If a dog sits when the trainer says to sit, that is basic stimulus response.

In contrast, says the author, when commanded to do something creative, the dolphins make different choices each time they see this signal, and this speaks to a greater cognitive ability (imagine trying to teach a trick like that to a dog!)

I hope that clears it up--let me know. Thanks!

~Steve

[moshei24]

I'm not sure how that relates the my previous post. I'm trying to understand why (E) doesn't work. I wrote out what I thought you were trying to explain in my previous point. You responded with something that wasn't in response to that - so I'm not sure what point your response is trying to make.

Are we trying to prove that dolphins don't only respond to signal with trained responses? Is that why what wild ones do isn't applicable? Because they don't tell us about how non-wild dolphins react to signals? Just because a wild dolphins could be creative doesn't tell us that dolphins' reaction to a signal are creative?

I'm getting more confused each time, because it appears to me like you keep trying to explain the question from your point of view differently each time without taking into account what I'm saying. So I don't see if my understanding is correct or not. All I keep getting a new way to look at it completely from your point of view.

Can you please try to explain it to me from my point of view?

What's the conclusion? How do you see the conclusion? If that was clear, I think I would be able to see why (B) strengthens and (E) doesn't at all, as opposed to my belief that (E) just doesn't strengthen as much as (B) does.

Unless, are you trying to say that (E) won't work, because even if they do those things in the wild, that doesn't tell us that when they do them in response to a signal, it wasn't because they were trained to do them in response to the signal. They may know how to do them innately, but still be trained to do them in response to the signal.

And therefore, (B) works because it gives us an example of dolphins doing things that are clearly not trained responses. And since the LSAT assumes that a cause always has the same effect, then since (B) is showing us that that cause sometimes results in an effect where non-learned responses occur, so it must be that every time the effect is a non-learned response? And it can't sometimes be a learned response and a non-learned response, because a cause can't have two effects?

Is that what it's saying? Or am I off?

Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

Hey Moshe,

A few points that might help out here. Always keep in mind that we don't try to explain things from our view, or your view, but rather from Law Services' view. They are the arbiters of what is right and wrong on this test, and understanding and explaining their viewpoint is always our goal. So, I think your request to explain it from your view probably isn't the right approach

That said, I think we can all agree that (B) strengthens the argument, and is the correct answer. Thus, the question comes down to the value of (E), and whether it strengthens the argument in any manner in the opinion of the test makers. I don't want to review all the prior comments on (E) in detail because I don't see the use in it, but in my opinion, (E) actually hurts the argument, if anything. If dolphins are exhibiting these same types of behaviors in their natural habitat, it may mean that the responses being exhibited to the hand signal are just random behaviors and not actually the product of higher cognitive functions being exhibited in response to the hand signal. In stating this view, it's my belief that the dolphins in their natural habitat have not been trained (that's my interpretation of "natural"). But, what if they had been trained and were just out there palling around in a non-trainer-present environment? Would that belief change this answer to something that strengthens the argument? In my opinion, no. If that was the case, I don't see it specifically helping the argument because we can't be sure what to make of that fact--is it a random behavior or the result of higher cognitive function?

Thanks!