#12 - Humans’ emotional tendencies are essentially unchanged

[nicholaspavic]

Hi smm,
This is a great question! And clearly you are observing more about the nature of the stimulus, question stem and answers which is a tremendous asset to have come test day. So keep up the great work and kudos!

With respect to your question about whether Answer (E) also would go so far as to justify the conclusion, note the use of the term "generally" in the stimulus: "humans are generally unable to choose more wisely." What does that term mean? "Generally" refers to more than 50% of the time and is quite strong. Here the even stronger language of Answer (E) probably does go far enough to become a situation where the Premise + Answer Choice = Conclusion. So well done! Keep up the good work!

[rhjones2691]

Hello,

So, if I am understanding it correctly, credited assumption answer choices can, in some cases, justify the conclusion (like this particular question)? It would be an answer choice that is both necessary for and sufficient to prove the argument? I was unsure about (E) because I thought it justified the conclusion, and often justify answers are not required for the conclusion. Thanks for the help!

[Daniel Stern]

Credited answer E here provides a necessary link between the premise that humans emotions are unchanged and the conclusion that humans are unable to choose more wisely among their societal options.

That, in some sense, we can also consider E "sufficient," or an answer that justifies the conclusion entirely, is not a reason to eliminate it as an answer once we realize that it does provide that necessary link to the new term "choosing wisely" in the conclusion.

I hope that is helpful.

Best,
Dan

[LSAT2018]

Hi smm,
This is a great question! And clearly you are observing more about the nature of the stimulus, question stem and answers which is a tremendous asset to have come test day. So keep up the great work and kudos!

With respect to your question about whether Answer (E) also would go so far as to justify the conclusion, note the use of the term "generally" in the stimulus: "humans are generally unable to choose more wisely." What does that term mean? "Generally" refers to more than 50% of the time and is quite strong. Here the even stronger language of Answer (E) probably does go far enough to become a situation where the Premise + Answer Choice = Conclusion. So well done! Keep up the good work!

I chose answer (E) but felt uneasy about it because it came off as too strong. Conditional reasoning is used in the answer, whereas the conclusion refers to 'generally' which is not the 100 percent that I would expect from conditional reasoning. How is this answer a necessary assumption?

[hskhader]

If this was a justify the conclusion question, would D be correct?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi LSAT2018 and hskhader

LSAT2018, let's look first at the conditional language. It does say "generally" in the conclusion. That's less strong that we usually see in conditional relationships, but it's not unheard of on the test. The testmakers will sometimes modify language in conditionals. But mostly, we know it's conditional by the nature of assumption questions. We are looking for what is necessary for the conclusion. The conclusion is the sufficient. The answer choice is the necessary. That's the essential assumption structure.

hskhader, answer choice (D) would be a fine justify answer. It's too strong for an assumption, but it would be a fine justify answer. If we knew humans choose on emotion alone, and emotional tendencies were unchanged, that would be enough to show that we cannot make wiser choices.

Hope that helps!

[nealaguo]

Hello!

I'm having trouble recognizing the reasoning in the argument below:

"Humans' emotional tendencies are essentially unchanged from those of the earliest members of our species. Accordingly, although technology makes possible a wider range of individual and societal choices than in centuries past, humans are generally unable to choose more wisely."

I was able to identify the conclusion: "humans are unable to choose more wisely."
But I wrongly identified the reasoning to be: "the range of choices doesn't have an impact on how we choose", which is completely the wrong direction because an online answer sheet listed the reasoning to be: "our emotional tendencies haven't changed."

Naturally I also chose the wrong answer because I misidentified the reasoning of the argument.

So, bottomline is, why is my reasoning incorrect (I do not see why I am wrong still), and what is the best way to avoid picking out the wrong reasoning when doing these necessary assumption questions?

Thanks!

[Malila Robinson]

Hi nealaguo,
I think your conclusion is good. The first sentence tells us that humans' growth in emotional tendencies is stunted (to the point of not changing) in relation to humans' evolution. From that, the argument concludes that even if humans have focused more on expanding things that should add to, or create an expansion of their emotional tendencies, due to the ongoing the lack of change related to these emotional tendencies humans won't be able to reach a high enough emotional disposition level to make wiser choices.

Answer E is saying that if humans have evolved to a point where they are now able to make better decisions than they did in the past when they were stunted, it must be because there has been a change in their emotional dispositions.

It seems that you didn't necessarily pick out the wrong reasoning in the argument. You just need to take a few more steps to link the parts of the stimulus together, and that, along with things like the Assumption Negation technique, will help to guide you to the correct answer.

Hope that helps!
-Malila

[Sammiewhammie]

Hi,

So the argument is saying that our emotional tendencies have not changed in comparison to the earliest members of our species, and because of this we are unable to choose more wisely.

Then answer E is saying that if we become wiser then there has been a change in our emotional tendencies. Is that correct?

Feels like I just restated the entire problem. But there’s just a whole bunch of words that make me lose focus when trying to understand it altogether.

Thanks,
Sammie

[katehos]

Hi Sammie!

You're absolutely correct - great job navigating this question! The language on the LSAT can certainly be tricky, but with practice it should become easier to understand each stimulus as a whole. Keep up the good work!

Hope this helps
Kate