#4 - The purpose of the physical sciences is to predict the

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Main Point. The correct answer choice is (A)

The ability to quickly identify the correct answer to a Main Point question is directly tied to our understanding of the structure of the argument and its conclusion. Since the correct answer is often simply a paraphrase of the conclusion, test makers are prone to obfuscate the conclusion by introducing unnecessary information or subsidiary conclusions in order to increase the level of difficulty of the question.

In this instance, the argument can be summarized as follows:

• Premise (1): Understanding a human action requires knowing its goal
  
  Assumption (2): Predicting human behavior does not afford knowledge of its goals
  
  Conclusion: Even successful predictions of human behavior do not provide understanding of it.

Observant test takers will notice that the conclusion is a Contrapositive of the conditional reasoning chain established in the premises.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice, as it is a direct paraphrase of the conclusion.

Answer choice (B): Since the author clearly states that human behavior can be predicted without an understanding of its purpose, this answer choice is disproven by the information contained in the stimulus and is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): Understanding an action requires knowing its goal. Whether the action (or event) can be predicted is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for its understanding. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): While this statement can be inferred from the first sentence in the stimulus, it is not the main point of the argument as it only establishes a contextual background for it. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): It is entirely unclear what is meant by the reference to the “psychological states of human agents” here. You were hopefully able to eliminate this answer choice pretty quickly.

[moshei24]

Hi!

I don't see where in the stimulus the explanation online got the second assumption from. Can you explain where that assumption came from? It seems from the explanation that they're saying that the conclusion came from it, but it seems to me more like the assumption came from the conclusion. Also, how do you decipher the conclusion out of all the extra fluff in that question?

Thanks you!



Side Point: Which Lesson goes over identifying the main point?

Thanks.

[Steve Stein]

Hi Moshe,

"Can you explain where that assumption came from? It seems from the explanation that they're saying that the conclusion came from it, but it seems to me more like the assumption came from the conclusion. Also, how do you decipher the conclusion out of all the extra fluff"

Thanks for your question for something like, this, it would be helpful for you to provide a bit more context, for the sake of others reading this forum, since we want all readers to benefit. although if it is confusing to me, it is probably confusing to others as well.

Thanks!

~Steve

[moshei24]

In the explanation on the PowerScore site, it gives two assumptions and a conclusion. I found the first assumption and the conclusion it gave in the stimulus, but I couldn't find the second assumption in the stimulus. Rather, it seems to me that the second assumption must be assumed given the conclusion. Can you explain how the explanation on PowerScore got the second assumption? What am I missing that I don't see it?

[moshei24]

The explanation said that both assumptions came from the stimulus, unless I'm making a mistake with that.

Thanks.

[Joshua Kronick]

In my opinion, I think you're adding an extra level of complexity to this question that doesn't need to be added. When you're trying to identify a conclusion in a rather longer stimulus, such as this one, look back to your lesson one understanding of argumentation. When you read every stimulus think to yourself, what is the author trying to convince me of? What are his proofs? Look at the first sentence of the stimulus, notice how no premises are brought in to prove this point, that's because it's a premise, just a plain ol fact. Remember, a conclusion is something that should follow logically from a premise(s). Second sentence, also a premise. Just another fact. Notice how when you read these sentences you should have no strong reaction as to whether you believe what the author is saying or not. He's just stating facts.

The third sentence is where it gets tricky. However often indicates that the author is about to draw a conclusion that he will then give a premise for to support. Notice how he says immediately after the however clause the word "for" which is a premise indicator. When you read predictions of human behavior do not provide an understanding of it, you should be thinking "well, why is that?" And then the author proceeds to tell you why, introduced by the word for. That's how you know you've located the conclusion.

[Adam Tyson]

Remember that assumptions don't exactly come from the stimulus, in the sense that you won't find them stated there. If they were stated, they would be premises rather than assumptions.

Try this approach - turn this question into an assumption question. If the conclusion (predicting behavior does not indicate understanding of that behavior) is correct, and we couple that with the premise that understanding requires knowing goals, and you see that the author must have assumed that predicting behavior does not mean you know the goals. Try negating that assumption - let's say that predicting behavior DOES mean you must know goals. If we can sometimes predict, and if predicting means knowing goals, and understanding also requires knowing goals, then we could no longer conclude that predicting doesn't provide understanding. It might be that predicting DOES provide understanding, if all we need is to know goals, right? That's how we got that assumption that you saw in the online explanation.

Hope that helped.

Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

[moshei24]

It definitely helped. But I'm guessing this is the type of conditional reasoning that is supposed to be really difficult and hurt one's head?

[moshei24]

If you could diagram the logic, it would for sure help a lot. Thank you!

[moshei24]

Actually, sorry. No need to diagram the logic. I think I see it. It's just hard to think about abstractly. It makes more sense when it's diagrammed, but as concepts and not looking at it diagrammed, it's much more annoying because of the inherent contrapositives going on in the logic.