LSAT 122 – Section 2 – Question 23

LSAT 122 - Section 2 - Question 23

June 2006

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:14

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
PT122 S2 Q23
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
A
23%
161
B
60%
166
C
9%
159
D
4%
157
E
4%
161
149
160
170
 +Hardest 146.896 +SubsectionMedium

Commentator: Human behavior cannot be fully understood without inquiring into nonphysical aspects of persons. As evidence of this, I submit the following: suppose that we had a complete scientific account of the physical aspects of some particular human action—every neurological, physiological, and environmental event involved. Even with all that we would obviously still not truly comprehend the action or know why it occurred.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that human behavior can’t be fully understood without inquiring into nonphysical aspects of humans. This is based on the following line of reasoning: If we had a complete account of physical aspects of a human action, we still wouldn’t comprehend the action or why it occurred.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author uses circular reasoning. The premise — the idea that if we had a complete physical account of a human action, we still wouldn’t comprehend the action — assumes that human behavior can’t be fully understood without investigating nonphysical aspects. Nobody would accept the premise unless they already accept the conclusion.

A
No support is offered for its conclusion other than an analogy that relates only superficially to the issue at hand.
The author doesn’t point to similarities between two things in order to conclude another similarity. Also, the premise is not just superficially related to the conclusion. It assumes the conclusion is true. This isn’t good reasoning, but that doesn’t make the premise irrelevant.
B
The purported evidence that it cites in support of its conclusion presumes that the conclusion is true.
The purported evidence (the idea that a complete understanding of physical aspects of a human action still wouldn’t constitute comprehension of the action) assumes that understanding human actions requires something beyond an understanding of physical aspects.
C
It concludes that a proposition must be true merely on the grounds that it has not been proven false.
The premise does not assert that there’s no evidence against the idea that understanding human behavior requires inquiry into nonphysical aspects.
D
It fails to indicate whether the speaker is aware of any evidence that could undermine the conclusion.
Arguments do not have to mention anything about the author’s awareness of potential counterevidence. Although the existence of counterevidence could hurt an argument, it’s not a flaw to omit whether you’re aware of counterevidence.
E
It presumes, without providing justification, that science can provide a complete account of any physical phenomenon.
The author asks us to “suppose” that we had a complete scientific account of physical aspects. This doesn’t mean the author thinks science actually can provide such an account. We’re just considering this hypothetical for the sake of following a line of reasoning.

Cookie Cutter Review
Flaw - (B) circular reasoning
(A) bad analogy
(C) failure to prove not X confused for proof of X

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 122 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply