#22 - Meerkat "sentinels," so-called because they watch

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (C)

The stimulus indicates that the meerkat sentinel, a type of meerkat that watches for predators while other meerkats forage, emits a loud bark that warns other meerkats of potential danger. The author concludes that this behavior is motivated at least in part by altruism. Because the conclusion seeks to explain an observation presented in the premise, the relationship between premise and conclusion is a causal one, and can be diagrammed as follows:

• Cause Effect
  
  Premise: Loud bark Alert other meerkats
  
  Conclusion: Altruism Loud bark

Because this is a Flaw question, it is important to examine closely the relationship between premises and conclusion in order to understand the logical flaw before proceeding to the answer choices. At first glance, the conclusion seems somewhat reasonable: After all, the sentinel’s bark does alert other meerkats to the presence of danger, so it is possible that its behavior is motivated at least in part by altruism. However, we cannot be sure: the bark may represent an instinctual response to fear, which would make its alerting effect fortuitous but incidental. The author ignores this alternative explanation, assuming that the effect produced by an action can provide sufficient evidence about its purpose. This prephrase is immensely helpful in identifying answer choice (C) as being correct.

The argument does not contain a typical causal reasoning error, because the author never argues that the loud bark emitted by the sentinel is motivated entirely by altruism. Rather than ignoring other concurrent explanations, the conclusion is careful to suggest that the behavior observed is motivated at least in part by altruism. Unfortunately, the effect produced by an action does not by itself provide any evidence about the causes of that action. This is an error in the use of evidence, whereby some evidence of altruistic motivation is taken to prove that such a motivation actually exists.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice suggests that the argument is self-contradictory. It is not. The fact that the meerkat sentinels benefit from their own watchful behavior does not undermine the conclusion that their behavior is, at least in part, altruistic. The author never discounted the possibility that the sentinels are both self-interested and altruistic.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice describes a circular reasoning flaw, for which there is no evidence here. The author does not assume that the sentinels’ watchful behavior is altruistic: she attempts to prove that it is by observing its fortuitous effect on other meerkats.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed above, the author interprets the sentinels’ bark as a form of altruism, because it serves to alert other meerkats to the presence of danger. This is a mistake, because we cannot infer solely from the fortuitous effect produced by an action that the purpose of that action is to produce that effect.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice fails the Fact Test, because the author never claimed that the behavior of a meerkat sentinel is entirely altruistic. The conclusion clearly states that it is an “example of animal behavior motivated at least in part by altruism.”

Answer choice (E): This is the reverse answer. The argument concludes that a claim is true (sentinels’ behavior is motivated by altruism) on the grounds that some evidence has been offered to support it (the loud bark warning other meerkats of danger).

[bli2016]

Hi, for this question about meerkats, I was confused because I could not see another reason why the sentinel meerkats would emit a loud bark other than to alert the group members of the presence of danger (which is altruistic behavior). I think I assumed that barking in the presence of danger was the duty of the sentinels because of the first sentence. Could someone explain how to recognize that this link between barking and its purpose is missing in the stimulus and maybe give a example of how the meerkat sentinels may be barking for selfish reasons only? Thank you!

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Bli,

I agree that it really seems at first glance that there's only one explanation for barking - altruism. The author did a pretty good job of transitioning to this conclusion. But think about another animal for this one. If a lone dog senses a predator coming, it could either run away or starting barking and growling at it. This isn't altruism; it is just defending itself by barking at a predator.

Here's another scenario. You are walking outside and see a wolf coming towards you. You run as quickly as possible into your house. Are you yelling in fear? I would be screaming in panic! This has no purpose whatsoever. It might help the people near me realize there is something dangerous coming, but I'm just yelling because I am scared out of my mind.

So there are two alternative explanations: self-defense and expressing fright (which is not intended to serve any purpose at all). The harder question you asked is how to find missing links like this in the future. There's no easy method for this; you just need to question whatever you read that is not a direct synonym of what was given. This is tough at first, but will come naturally to you with more practice. Start looking for these missing links in every stimulus you read during practice.

[bearcats123]

Hi, I see why C is the correct answer, but do not see how E is wrong.
I thought the author is trying to show that the sentinels behavior is not entirely self-interested and that the sentinels behavior is at least in part by altruism. Then they use the C/E scenario, but as mentioned in a previous post,that isn't sufficient to prove that the loud bark they emit is to help others. They could have made the loud bark as a natural instinct. So by looking at it that way, doesn't answer choice E work? That the author is concluding that the sentinels behavior is not self-interested by evidence that doesn't definitely prove so? Can someone please help me see where my reasoning is off? Thank you!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi bearcats,

Your understanding of what's going on in the stimulus looks pretty solid, it's just that's not what answer choice E is actually describing (which is often the problem students run into with Flaw and Method answers!).

What answer choice E is describing is an argument where the author said something like, "The claim that meerkat sentinels are entirely self-interested is wrong, because the studies that have been done were methodologically unsound." Or, "The claim that meerkat sentinels are entirely self-interested is wrong, because the initial studies that were done to show their self-interest have been called into question by more recent studies." In each of these hypothetical arguments, the "grounds" the author is using is that the evidence supporting the meerkat self-interest claim (i.e., the evidence supporting the other side's argument) is insufficient.

But, as you noticed, in this question, the author's "grounds" are not that there is insufficient evidence for the claim that meerkats are entirely self-interested. Instead, the author's "grounds" are that the behavior of the meerkat in barking shows that it is at least partly unselfish/altruistic. The author's own evidence is definitely insufficient (for the reasons answer choice C notes). But the author is not claiming (using as grounds) that the other side's evidence (those who would say meerkats are entirely self-interested) is insufficient. That's what answer choice E is saying, and that's the reason answer choice E doesn't work.

I hope this helps!

[bearcats123]

Yes, that makes more sense! Thank you Jeremy!

[nickp18]

Hi everyone!

I seem to have lots of trouble with these questions, particularly due to the nature of the wording in the answer choices such as B, which states, "appealing to evidence that presupposes the truth of the argument's conclusion".

Would someone mind walking me through through exactly what that means?

Thank you in advance!

[katehos]

Hi nickp18!

The use of "appealing to evidence that presupposes the truth of the argument's conclusion" refers to circular reasoning. Basically, that phrase means that the conclusion is just a restatement of the original argument (aka the premises and the conclusion are the same). Since we know that a conclusion must follow from the premise(s), it is a logical to flaw to have identical conclusions and premises.

An example of this circular reasoning as it relates to this stimulus would be something like: "The sentinel's behavior displays altruism because the sentinel's behavior is altruistic." Other examples include reasoning such as "this poem is the best because it is better than all others." As you can probably see, these examples have matching premises and conclusions and are thus using circular reasoning (or presupposing the truth of the conclusion).

In the stimulus itself, the author does not rely on this kind of flawed logic (though, of course, they employ other faulty reasoning). If you are in need of additional resources, you might find it beneficial to look through this analysis of flaws https://www.powerscore.com/lsat/help/lr_flaws.cfm! The article outlines different types of flaws and provides examples of the language the LSAT uses to refer to them

I hope this helps!
Kate

[powerlsat]

Good afternoon PowerScore! Though I've understood why C is correct, I have a question about B. When I was reviewing this question, it was difficult for me to see how the two ideas (not being entirely self-interested and being motivated at least partially by altruism) were different from one another. If one is motivated at least in part by altruism (a desire to benefit someone for their sake), then it means one is not entirely self-interested. If these two do not differ in any way, this argument can also be considered an instance of circular reasoning, which is described by answer choice B. Can someone help me differentiate between the two? Thank you in advance!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi powerlsat!

Your reasoning at the start seems to make sense. You comment,

If one is motivated at least in part by altruism (a desire to benefit someone for their sake), then it means one is not entirely self-interested.

That seems right. But it's not clear why that means that this stimulus is engaged in circular reasoning. That seems to be a way to describe something two different ways (being not "entirely self-interested" and being "motivated at least in part by altruism"). Using two different ways to describe something isn't to engage in circular reasoning.

Rather, circular reasoning happens when, for example, a stimulus presupposes what it sets out to establish--e.g., it takes the truth of the conclusion as given and uses this in support of the conclusion. Something like that is missing in this stimulus.