#15 - Studies of brain lateralization in animals have

[Adam Tyson]

"The counterexample of X" indicates that X is itself a counterexample to something else, Coleman. "A counterexample to X," if we ever saw that phrase, would indicate an example that was offered against X. So in this case, "the counterexample of dogs that shake hands" means that the dogs are the counterexample, and that they were used as evidence against some other claim (the claim that animals other than humans are divided equally between left- and right-handedness).

[SammyWu11201]

I think I was tripped up by the question stem. When they say "strongest defense against the counterexample," they are telling you to strengthen the stimulus, right? Therefore, you are defending the stimulus from any possible counterexamples.

[Adam Tyson]

Just the opposite, SammyWu11201. The argument gave a counterexample - dogs, which mostly shake with the front right paw, and so do not appear to be equally left- and right-handed - and this question asks us to show why that counterexample is not a good one. We need to weaken the argument by attacking the example of dogs, showing that it is not good evidence for the conclusion.

[ToadKing]

Hi,

Could someone clarify what is the "cause" and what is the "effect" in the question? I did not catch and C/E relationship.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The argument itself is not causal, ToadKing, but answer choice E is causal, as indicated by the use of the word "influenced." That kind of active language is what causal reasoning is all about, indicating that one thing is having an effect on another. The cause in this answer is human trainers (who would be primarily right-handed), and the effect is that dogs learn to shake with their front right paw. Since it is human trainers causing this behavior, there is less reason to believe that dogs are just naturally inclined to be right-side dominant.