#2 - To acquire a better understanding of the structure and development of the human personality,

[sunshine123]

Howdy,

We're essentially asked to pick the one answer choice that does not provide an explanation to the question,:"Why do some psychologists study animals in order to better understand humans? "

Answer choice D responds by saying, "oh, we study animals to better understand humans because we study humans to better understand animals"

The question does not properly answer our question because it does not tell us what it is about ANIMALS that makes them good models to study and better understand humans(is that right? is that what we are looking for? what is an explanation?).

However, the answer choice D obviously suggests - entails I should say - that there is some relatedness or similarity between animals and humans, or at least enough room to learn about one by looking at the other. Now, seeing that the answer choice lessens the distance or difference between animals and humans, then why is it the case that it is said NOT to contribute to an explanation of the practice, since the practice makes more sense if the difference between the two subjects is lessened? Common sense suggests the answer gives us SOMETHING like an explanation - LSAT reasoning does not. Please please please expand on what that reasoning is supposed to be.

Best,
Sunshine

[atierney]

Howdy Howdy!

Yes, you know this is the second on the test, and so, rumor has it this question is not supposed of the more difficult/analyzed and debated questions... the kind of question that scholars years from now might forget about in the lengthy discourse in the history of Law School Preparation. If this were a philosopher... well, let's not get ahead of ourselves shall we?

Anyway, so, I think that this is one of the cases D is the worst answer, or the answer that is the least helpful in explaining the conclusion, and for that reason it can be selected via process of elimination. The idea here, also, from a logical perspective, is that a to b, or a for the purpose of achieving does not imply b to a, or b for the purpose of achieving a. And this the much-discussed mistaken reversal, or an error in logic that is one of the few real "rules" the LSAT tests for. As a general rule here, any time you have an answer choice one of the key features the LSAT is testing (or that PowerScore talks about) it's probably a pretty significant answer choice. And for that reason alone, I think it's worth looking at/selecting as the best answer.

Let me know if you have further questions on this.

[sunshine123]

ahhhh I see, Thank you (howdy howdy howdy)

[sunshine123]

Okay, one more question.

Your explanation totally makes sense. If the correct answer is supposed to represent something like a mistaken reversal, then the argument stands for something like a conditional statement. Is that conditional nature inherent to the stim? - "study personalities of animals ------------> acquire a better understanding of human personality." Or, does the answer hinge on the idea that any piece of evidence and conclusion CAN be understood in terms of conditional reasoning - the conclusion, the result, in a way is derrives from the evidence, the premises and as such the relationship can be understood in terms of a conditional statement. I guess my question is whether I should think of arguments in that way. Whether it is helpful to apply the notion of conditionality beyond its obvious appearance and application.

Thanks in advance,
Sunshine

[sunshine123]

To shorten and clarify my previous point - the stimulus does NOT come across as strictly conditional in nature ! That is what threw me off. It states, essentially, that people do one thing IN ORDER to do another, not if one thing then another. So, that suggests conditionality extends to things that are not maybe strictly conditional in nature, or obviously conditional in nature.

Best,
Sunshine

[atierney]

Howdy, howdy, howdy, howdy!

Ok, so the point of confusion here is my use of "mistaken reversal," is that correct? I think that to the extent that you associated mistaken reversal **only** with conditionality, that is also a mistake! Remember causal relationships can also be similarly mistaken! And indeed, purposeful causes often take the form of "if you do A, then you will achieve B," essentially taking the form of if/then statements. Here, I would agree that conditionality, if any, is in this latter form of purposeful causation. It is important to realize that an effect depends upon its cause in a way that conditions its occurrence to the occurrence of its cause, assuming such cause the cause in fact of any effect. Note, proximate cause is another type of cause, but the conditional cause is known as the cause in fact.

Hopefully, though you were able to see that. If not, let me know if you further clarification!

[sunshine123]

Aha !!!! That totally makes sense. My understanding of the mistaken reversal was too narrow. Thank you.