LSAT 108 – Section 3 – Question 25

LSAT 108 - Section 3 - Question 25

February 2000

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:00

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT108 S3 Q25	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method	A 1% 152 B 1% 150 C 95% 167 D 1% 159 E 1% 154	138 145 153	+Medium	147.273 +SubsectionMedium

Anthropologist: After mapping the complete dominance hierarchy for a troupe of vervet monkeys by examining their pairwise interaction, we successfully predicted more complex forms of their group behavior by assuming that each monkey had knowledge of the complete hierarchy. Since our prediction was so accurate, it follows that the assumption we used to reach it was in fact true.

Primatologist: Although I agree that your assumption helped you make those predictions, your conclusion does not follow. You might as well argue that since we can predict the output of some bank cash machines by assuming that these machines actually want to satisfy the customers’ requests, these cash machines must really have desires.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

In response to the anthropologist’s claim that the assumption used to reach their prediction was true, the primatologist concludes that the anthropologist’s conclusion actually does not follow. As evidence, the primatologist compares the anthropologist’s argument to an argument about bank cash machines: the cash machines must really have desires because we can predict the output of the machines by assuming the machines want to satisfy customer requests.

Describe Method of Reasoning

The primatologist counters the position held by the anthropologist. She does this by presenting an analogous argument in order to show that the anthropologist’s reasoning is absurd.

citing various facts that could not obtain if the anthropologist’s conclusion were correct

The primatologist does not suggest that certain facts could not be true if the anthropologist’s conclusion was correct. She demonstrates that an additional argument is absurd in the same way the anthropologist’s argument is absurd.

offering another argument that has as its premise the denial of the thesis that the anthropologist defends

The primatologist’s argument relates to a completely different topic than the anthropologist’s argument. Her argument about bank cash machines does not have a premise about vervet monkeys.

applying one of the anthropologist’s reasoning steps in another argument in an attempt to show that it leads to an absurd conclusion

The reasoning step the primatologist applies is the reasoning step of concluding that because a prediction was correct, the assumption used to make that prediction is also correct.

attacking the anthropologist’s expertise by suggesting the anthropologist is ignorant of the analogy that can be drawn between animals and machines

The primatologist does not attack the anthropologist’s expertise. She addresses the anthropologist’s argument directly without focusing on the anthropologist’s personal characteristics.

suggesting that the anthropologist’s argument relies on a misinterpretation of a key scientific term

There is no key term or key phrase that the primatologist suggests the anthropologist is misinterpreting.

LSAT 108 – Section 3 – Question 25

LSAT 108 - Section 3 - Question 25

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 108 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel