#11 - Even though apes are the only nonhuman creatures able

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (C)

The premise says: No ape has ever used human language skills to ask philosophical questions. The conclusion says: philosophical thought is unique to humans.

The meaning of "ask" in the stimulus is slightly unclear. Does "ask" mean to communicate a question to the outside world? Or could "ask" mean to pose a question inside one's own mind? We should keep this ambiguity in mind as we work through the question. If we use the latter interpretation, then the stimulus is telling us that apes have never even posed philosophical questions using human language inside their own minds.

There are several holes in this argument. First (assuming that "ask" implies communication), why are we so sure that philosophical thought requires communication? Perhaps apes could have philosophical thoughts in their minds, but not communicate the thoughts using language. Second, why are we so sure that philosophical thought requires human language at all? Apes, and many other animals, could potentially have philosophical thought that does not involve human language.

Notice the question stem: We are looking for a necessary, though perhaps not sufficient, assumption which will fill in at least one gap in this argument.

Answer choice (A): This passage certainly does not rely on the assumption that "human language is unique to humans." Indeed, the passage establishes in the very first sentence that apes can learn human language!

Answer choice (B): Apply the Assumption Negation test: What if apes are capable of thinking in human language? This suggests that perhaps they might be able to think philosophical thoughts inside their mind, and thus the author's argument appears to fail. How can we choose between this answer choice and answer choice (B)? Perhaps we need to use the interpretation that "ask" means to pose a question inside one's own mind. Using this construction, the stimulus is telling us that apes have never even posed philosophical questions using human language inside their own minds. So now the Assumption Negation test on answer choice (B) fails to destroy the original argument.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Apply the Assumption Negation test: What if philosophical thought could be expressed in terms other than human language? If this is the case, it opens up the possibility that apes, and countless other animals, could have philosophical thoughts and express those thoughts, but just not use human language to do so. This would totally destroy the argument. Thus, the statement in this answer choice is necessary for the argument to be valid.

Answer choice (D): Apply the Assumption Negation test: What if speaking in human language is equally hard, or harder, than thinking in human language? This would suggest that perhaps apes might find it difficult to express philosophical thoughts in human language, but less difficult to think philosophical thoughts in human language. However, this does not prove that apes are actually capable of thinking philosophical thoughts.

Answer choice (E): Apply the Assumption Negation test: What if learning human language is equally, or less, difficult than expressing philosophical questions? This provides an explanation for why apes have not yet expressed philosophical questions in human language, but like answer choice (D), it does not prove that apes are actually capable of thinking philosophical thoughts.

[LSAT2018]

Is this question possible through conditional reasoning?

Premise: Ape → Not Use Human Language
Conclusion: Philosophical Thought → Humans (or Philosophical Thought → Not Ape)

To link together,
Ape → Not Use Human Language
Ape → No Philosophical Thought (Contrapositive of Conclusion)
Assumption: Not Use Human Language → No Philosophical Thought
Philosophical Thought → Use Human Language (Contrapositive)

Is there an easier way to do conditional reasoning?
PS. Would asking philosophical questions in the premise be different from the philosophical thoughts in the conclusion?

[Adam Tyson]

This argument can be analyzed conditionally, LSAT2018, but to do so we would have to get those conditional relatinoships sorted out correctly. Your first conditional claim is actually the opposite of something the author said. The argument didn't say that apes do NOT use human language, but rather that they are the only nonhumans to do so. That would be something like:

Nonhuman uses human language Ape

Turns out that claim isn't really the key to a conditional approach to this question, though. Instead, the gap here is between the premise about not asking philosophical questions and the conclusion about not engaging in philosophical thought. Our prephrase, if we were to approach it conditionally, would be to make that premise sufficient for that conclusion, something like:

Not ask philosophical questions not engage in philosophical thought

The contrapositve might help here:

Engage in philosophical thought ask philosophical questions

Answer C does this latter, making the use of human language (asking the questions) necessary for having the thoughts. Try the negation technique on answer C, and you get "you can have the thoughts without putting them into words/asking the qeustions." If that's true, then maybe apes (and others) COULD engage in philosophical thought. Expressing them in human language wouldn't be unnecessary.

To answer your last question, having the thoughts and asking the questions are NOT the same thing! Instead, they are the two different things that we must link in order to form our Supporter Assumption preprhase. Or you could dispense with conditional reasoning altogether and approach this as a Defender Assumption. We could attack this argument by saying something like "who says you have to use human language and ask those questions in order to have those thoughts? Maybe you can have the thoughts without using language?" The Defender Assumption fights off that attack by saying "oh, I assumed that expressing in human language was necessary to having those thoughts."

[Jerrymakehabit]

Can someone please explain why (B) is incorrect using the negation tech? I used the negation "Apes are capable of thinking in human language" which looks like hurting the conclusion that philosophical thought is unique to humans.

Thanks
Jerry

[Adam Tyson]

You have the negation right, Jerry, but you are overestimating the impact that it has on the conclusion. Consider these two statements, one being the conclusion of the argument and the other being the negation of answer B:

Philosophical thought is unique to humans.

Apes are capable of thinking in human language.

Are these two claims mutually exclusive? Does an ape's ability to think "I am hungry" or "it's hotter today than it was yesterday" mean that they can also form thoughts such as "what is my place in society?" and "what is the meaning of life?" The negation of answer B has no impact on the conclusion - it could still be true that apes cannot form philosophical thoughts, even if they can think in human language. That's why B is not a required assumption of the argument.

Answer C is required, because the author's only evidence that philosophical thought is unique to humans is that apes have never asked those kinds of questions in human language. What if they have those thoughts but have not expressed them? What if they have expressed them in ape language, but not in human language? Then the argument falls apart. The issue isn't just being able to think in human language - it's about being able to conceive of and express those kinds of ideas.

[Jerrymakehabit]

You have the negation right, Jerry, but you are overestimating the impact that it has on the conclusion. Consider these two statements, one being the conclusion of the argument and the other being the negation of answer B:

Philosophical thought is unique to humans.

Apes are capable of thinking in human language.

Are these two claims mutually exclusive? Does an ape's ability to think "I am hungry" or "it's hotter today than it was yesterday" mean that they can also form thoughts such as "what is my place in society?" and "what is the meaning of life?" The negation of answer B has no impact on the conclusion - it could still be true that apes cannot form philosophical thoughts, even if they can think in human language. That's why B is not a required assumption of the argument.

Answer C is required, because the author's only evidence that philosophical thought is unique to humans is that apes have never asked those kinds of questions in human language. What if they have those thoughts but have not expressed them? What if they have expressed them in ape language, but not in human language? Then the argument falls apart. The issue isn't just being able to think in human language - it's about being able to conceive of and express those kinds of ideas.

Adam,

After reading your analysis, I found I made a mistake equating "think in human language" to "philosophical thought". I always tried to equate elements when I read stimulus which is training inherited from engineering (I found something to blame on ). I need to adjust this habit and think broader in LSAT.

Thank you!
Jerry