Sections 2

Psychologist: Although studies of young children have revealed important facts about the influence of the environment on language acquisition, it is clear that one cannot attribute such acquisition solely to environmental influences: innate mechanisms also play a role. So, the most reasonable question that ought to be studied is whether _______.

Summary

The Psychologist claims that one cannot attribute children’s development of language solely to environmental influences. Why? Because children’s innate mechanisms also play a role in the development of language.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

So, the most reasonable question that ought to be studied is whether innate mechanisms or environmental factors play a more significant role for a child’s language development.

A

language acquisition can ever be fully explained

The Psychologist is not concerned if the development of language could ever be fully explained. Rather, the Psychologist is concerned with how language development could be partially explained.

B

innate mechanisms are a contributing factor in language learning

The Psychologist already claims that innate mechanisms play a role in the development of language.

C

language acquisition is solely the product of innate mechanisms

The Psychologist concedes that innate mechanisms are not the sole factor for language development. Rather, the Psychologist is claiming that these mechanisms play a role.

D

parents and peers are the most important influence on a child’s learning of a language

We don’t know whether parents and peers are the most important influence for developing language. We only know that environmental factors and innate mechanisms influence this development in some way.

E

innate mechanisms play a more important role in language acquisition than a child’s immediate environment

We know from the Psychologist that innate mechanisms play a partial role and environmental factors are not the sole influence on the development of language. Therefore, the next logical step is to consider what proportion of language development could we attribute to each of these factors.

8 comments

LSAT 113 - Section 2 - Question 10

March 11, 2014

Mark: To convey an understanding of past events, a historian should try to capture what it was like to experience those events. For instance, a foot soldier in the Battle of Waterloo knew through direct experience what the battle was like, and it is this kind of knowledge that the historian must capture.

Carla: But how do you go about choosing whose perspective is the valid one? Is the foot soldier’s perspective more valid than that of a general? Should it be a French or an English soldier? Your approach would generate a biased version of history, and to avoid that, historians must stick to general and objective characterizations of the past.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Carla denies Mark’s claim and concludes historians must stick to general and objective characterizations of the past. To support her claim, Carla poses rhetorical questions and states that the answers would generate a biased version of history.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Carla counters the position held by Mark. She does this by posing questions Mark’s argument fails to consider and states the approach would generate biased versions of history.

A

contests Mark’s understanding of historical events

Carla does not contest Mark’s understanding. She suggests that Mark’s proposed process would generate biased versions of history.

B

questions Mark’s presupposition that one person can understand another’s feelings

Carla does not question this presupposition. In fact, it’s implied that Carla agrees that one person can understand another’s feelings because she suggests we can choose between different perspectives.

C

argues that the selection involved in carrying out Mark’s proposal would distort the result

The selection involved is the selection of choosing which perspective is valid. The distorted result are the biased versions of history Carla claims Mark’s process would produce.

D

questions whether Mark accurately describes the kind of historical writing he deplores

Mark does not state that he deplores a certain kind of historical writing. We cannot assume that just because Mark prefers historical writing to be done a certain way, Mark deplores other kinds of historical writing.

E

gives reason to believe that Mark’s recommendation is motivated by his professional self-interest

Carla does not address any of Mark’s self-interests. Carla addresses Mark’s argument directly without focusing on personal characteristics.

4 comments

LSAT 113 - Section 2 - Question 11

March 11, 2014

Mark: To convey an understanding of past events, a historian should try to capture what it was like to experience those events. For instance, a foot soldier in the Battle of Waterloo knew through direct experience what the battle was like, and it is this kind of knowledge that the historian must capture.

Carla: But how do you go about choosing whose perspective is the valid one? Is the foot soldier’s perspective more valid than that of a general? Should it be a French or an English soldier? Your approach would generate a biased version of history, and to avoid that, historians must stick to general and objective characterizations of the past.

Speaker 1 Summary

Mark argues that historians should try to record what it was like to experience past events, which is supported by the reasoning that this approach would convey an understanding of those events. Mark offers the example of a foot soldier’s direct experience of the Battle of Waterloo.

Speaker 2 Summary

Carla claims that historians should instead describe the past in a general and objective way. This is because capturing a direct experience means one must choose which individual’s perspective is most important, which would lead to a biased version of history.

Objective

We need to find a disagreement between Mark and Carla. They disagree about whether historians should try to convey a direct experience of past events.

A

The purpose of writing history is to convey an understanding of past events.

Mark agrees with this, but Carla never disagrees. Carla’s argument never disputes that historians should try to convey an understanding of past events—the issue is just the perspective they use to do so.

B

The participants in a battle are capable of having an objective understanding of the ramifications of the events in which they are participating.

Neither speaker agrees or disagrees with this claim. Mark never even mentions objectivity, and Carla never says whether or not individual soldiers can be capable of objectivity.

C

Historians can succeed in conveying a sense of the way events in the distant past seemed to someone who lived in a past time.

Mark seems to agree with this claim, but Carla doesn’t take a position. Carla’s point is that historians shouldn’t try to convey a personal perspective of past events, whether or not that’s actually possible.

D

Historians should aim to convey past events from the perspective of participants in those events.

Mark agrees and Carla disagrees, making this the point of disagreement. This is the conclusion of Mark’s argument, while Carla’s conclusion is that historians should focus on a general, objective perspective instead (meaning they would not use an individual perspective).

E

Historians should use fictional episodes to supplement their accounts of past events if the documented record of those events is incomplete.

Neither speaker talks about the possible use of fiction to supplement historians’ accounts of past events. Fiction doesn’t come up in this discussion at all.

8 comments

LSAT 113 - Section 2 - Question 13

March 11, 2014

Adam: Marking road edges with reflecting posts gives drivers a clear view of the edges, thereby enabling them to drive more safely. Therefore, marking road edges with reflecting posts will decrease the annual number of road accidents.

Aiesha: You seem to forget that drivers exceed the speed limit more frequently and drive close to the road edge more frequently on roads that are marked with reflecting posts than on similar roads without posts, and those are driving behaviors that cause road accidents.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

Aiesha rejects Adam’s claim that marking road edges with reflecting posts will decrease the number of road accidents. As evidence, Aiesha points out that drivers speed and drive closer to a road’s edges when roads are marked with reflecting posts. Moreover, these are the driving behaviors that cause road accidents.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Aiesha counters the position held by Adam. She does this by presenting an additional consideration that weakens an assumption underlying Adam’s argument. Just because roads can enable drivers to drive more safely does not mean those drivers will in fact drive more safely.

A

questioning Adam’s assertion that reflecting posts give drivers a clear view of road edges

Aiesha does not state that reflecting posts do not give drivers a clear view. In fact, Aiesha suggests that this clear view is correlated with dangerous driving behaviors.

B

presenting a possible alternative method for decreasing road accidents

Aiesha does not propose an alternative method for decreasing road accidents. She only addresses the method of installing reflecting posts on roadway edges.

C

raising a consideration that challenges the argument’s assumption that facilitating safe driving will result in safer driving

Adam’s assumption is that reflecting posts actually cause drivers to drive more safely. The consideration Aiesha raises to challenge this is that drivers speed and drive closer to road edges when there are reflecting posts.

D

denying that the drivers’ view of the road is relevant to the number of road accidents

Aiesha does not claim that a driver’s view is not relevant to the number of road accidents. In fact, Aiesha agrees that this is a relevant factor because dangerous driving behaviors increase when there are reflecting posts.

E

providing additional evidence to undermine the claim that safer driving does not necessarily reduce the number of road accidents

Adam does not conclude that safer driving does not necessarily reduce the number of road accidents. In fact, Adam’s argument indicates the opposite. Aiesha does not address the conclusion described in this answer choice.

11 comments