#6 - Pain perception depends only partly on physiology

[jared.xu]

I now understand why the answer is E. My mistake is that I thought that the last sentence was the conclusion. "So it would seem that..." made me feel this way, and that it could be the subsidiary conclusion did not occur to me. That began a process of attempting to attribute some function to the first sentence. I felt that there was a gap between the last sentence and the sentence previous to it. The correlation between requesting less morphine and injured soldiers does not warrant a casual statement that the meaning of the wound would affect the amount of pain one perceives. The correlation could be explained by the fact that the nature of the injury suffered on the battlefield is very different from that suffered by surgery, and hence the pain is really different not merely perceived as different. It then dawned upon me that the first sentence actually could fill in the gap between the last sentence and the rest of the stimulus by stating possible nonphysiological factors. So I ended up choosing A. Could you tell me how I could avoid this mistake in the future? And also is it a safe rule to say that "an assumption" on the LSAT must always be unstated, and can never be traced to a sentence in the stimulus, and that when they ask for the function of a statement, the answer can never be that it is an assumption? Thank you.

[Nikki Siclunov]

The proper approach to a Method-AP question would be to understand the structure of the argument and prephrase an answer describing the claim mentioned in the question stem before examining the answer choices.

The argument is structured as follows:

Premise: A lower percentage of soldiers requested morphine than did civilians.

Premise: The soldiers response to injury was relief and joy, whereas civilians found surgery depressing.

Sub. Conclusion: The meaning one attaches to a wound can affect the amount of pain one perceives.

Conclusion: Pain perception depends only partly on physiology.

Even if there were gaps in this argument, your job is not to identify them or attack the conclusion but merely to describe the function of the first sentence. It should be noted that the first sentence depends on the last, not the other way around: given that the meaning one attaches to a would can affect the amount of pain one perceives, it would seem that pain perception depends partly on psychology (i.e. only partly on physiology). The first sentence is therefore not an assumption upon which the argument depends, but rather its main conclusion.

And yes, an assumption is always an unstated premise; if it were stated, that would actually be a premise. It would be very unusual for that to be an answer to a Method-AP question. However, note that when you have two speakers disagreeing on a certain issue, the Speaker 2's counter-argument can often be described as an argument undermining an assumption made by Speaker 1.

[rpark8214]

Hi,
I understand why answer choice (E) is the correct choice, but how do you differentiate between (A) and (D)? Is (A) talking about the sentence in question being a necessary assumption, whereas (D) is a sufficient assumption? Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The key to eliminating both answers A and D, rpark, is to recognize that assumptions are always unstated. They exist only in the mind of the author. As soon as he speaks or writes the assumption down, it is no longer an assumption, but has risen to the status of a premise! In Method of Reasoning-Argument Part questions, when they ask us what role a certain claim in the argument played, the answer can never be "an assumption", because if it was an assumption it wouldn't have been included in the stimulus!

The only exception I have seen to this is when the author uses the term "explicit assumption". Explicit means they said it - it wasn't assumed. That phrase is actually a contradiction in terms, but when they use it they mean "a premise."

As to your analysis of what the two answers in question are describing, your're correct that A describes a "necessary assumption" (which we usually just call an assumption). Answer D, however, does not describe a "sufficient assumption" (which we usually call a Justify the Conclusion answer). Rather, it just describes another assumption (the necessary kind). "Takes for granted" means "didn't say it but just assumed it was true."

To prephrase your answers to a Method-AP question, start with this: the claim in question is either a premise, a conclusion, or something else. If it's a premise, is it also a conclusion, supported by some other claim? That would make it an "intermediate" or "subordinate" conclusion. If that's not the case then it is just a premise and your analysis is complete. If it's a conclusion, is it the main conclusion, getting all the support and giving none, or is it, again, one of those intermediate things? Finally, if it isn't a premise or a conclusion, what is it? It could be the thing the argument is designed to disprove, or it could be extraneous info that has no bearing on the argument. Maybe it's an analogy or an example used to illustrate the point. Maybe it's background info that limits the scope of the argument. One thing is for sure, though - if the author said it, it is not any kind of assumption, because those are always left unsaid.

Keep pounding, rpark! Come back here again when you need us and let us know how else we can help you.

[menkenj]

Hi there,

I understand now why A and D are wrong, thank you for the explanation!

Where I went wrong was that I struggled to determine if the first or the last sentence of the stimulus was the conclusion. I think seeing "So" in the final sentence threw me so I found myself spending way too much time trying to figure out if the first sentence was indeed the conclusion. Do you have any insight that can help me identify more specifically what went wrong or how I might improve on identifying conclusions?

[Adam Tyson]

When you are stuck between two claims trying to figure out which is the main conclusion, try this: ignore the rest of the stimulus and see how those two statements relate to each other. One of them will usually support the other in a way that makes sense, given the content of the argument. For example:

1. Pain perception depends only partly on physiology, therefore the meaning one attaches to a wound can affect the amount of pain one perceives.

vs.

2. The meaning one attaches to a wound can affect the amount of pain one perceives, therefore pain perception depends only partly on physiology.

In both cases, the first claim (before the comma) is meant to be a premise and the second (following "therefore") is the conclusion. The first example above makes little sense - how did we get to anything about the meaning one attaches to a wound? The second example, though, works - if meaning matters, then physiology cannot be the only thing that matters. Looked at this way, the last sentence is providing support for the first sentence, so the last sentence cannot be the main conclusion.

Give that strategy a try the next time you're stuck and see if it gets you where you need to go!