A
During rough voyages ship passengers in cabins providing a view of the water are less likely to get motion sickness than are passengers in cabins providing no view.
B
Many people who are experienced airplane passengers occasionally get motion sickness.
C
Some automobile passengers whose inner ears indicate that they are moving and who have a clear view of the objects they are passing get motion sickness.
D
People who have aisle seats in trains or airplanes are as likely to get motion sickness as are people who have window seats.
E
Some astronauts do not get motion sickness even after being in orbit for several days.
A
It represents an unsupported speculation.
B
It both supports another claim in the argument and is supported by others.
C
It is the claim that the argument as a whole is structured to support.
D
It is a presupposition on which the argument is explicitly based.
E
It presents an objection to another proposal mentioned in the argument.
Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the information above?
This is a Most Strongly Supported question.
Computers perform actions that are closer to thinking than anything nonhuman animals do.
Think about developments in artificial intelligence – ChatGPT and other AI systems can write poetry, analyze business strategies, diagnose medical conditions, and more. These are examples of computers doing things that are closer to thinking than anything animals do. (I’m just going to drop “nonhuman” when referring to animals. I like the LSAT’s reminder that humans are animals, but for the sake of brevity, humans are humans and animals are animals in this explanation.)
But computers do not have volitional powers, although some nonhuman animals do.
But computers don’t have volitional powers – the ability to make one’s own choices. ChatGPT isn’t making choices when it responds to you – it’s simply doing as it’s programmed to do. Some animals do make choices, however.
Let’s put what we know together:
Computers are closer to thinking than animals are, and they don’t have volitional powers.
Animals are further away from thinking than computers, and some of them do have volitional powers.
This stimulus doesn’t lend itself to a strong prediction before the answers, so let’s just dive in and find the right answer via process of elimination.
Correct Answer Choice (A) Having volitional powers need not involve thinking.
This answer is strongly supported by the example of some animals. We know that some animals have volitional powers. But we also know that no animal engages in thinking. How do we know this? Because animals are further away from thinking than computers. And computers don’t even do thinking. There’s a divide in the world between thinking and not-thinking – both computers and animals are on the not-thinking side. Computers are just “closer to thinking” than animals.
So if some animals have volitional powers, but they don’t do thinking, that means volitional powers don’t need to involve thinking. In other words, it’s possible to have volitional powers without doing thinking.
Answer Choice (B) Things that are not animals do not have volitional powers.
We know that computers don’t have volitional powers. So some things that are not animals do not have volitional powers: computers. But we don’t know whether there’s anything else out there that lacks volitional powers. So we can’t say that “things that are not animals” don’t have volitional powers – we don’t know about the whole set of those things. We only know about computers. Maybe one-celled bacteria have volitional powers? Maybe plants have volitional powers? It sounds weird, I know. But we don’t have anything in the stimulus to suggest that bacteria or plants don’t have volitional power.
This is a tempting answer if you interpret (B) as “Some things that are not animals do not have volitional powers.” But this statement actually should be read with an implicit “all” before it: “All things that are not animals do not have volitional powers.” Unfortunately there isn’t a universal rule about when you should interpret a plural subject like “things” to begin with an implicit “all” – it depends on context. But the vast majority of the time, you should add an implicit “all” before a plural subject rather than an implicit “some.”
“Judges convicted of fraud will be removed from office.” This means all of those judges will be removed.
“Philosophical theories that go against common sense are difficult to understand.” This means all of those kinds of philosophical theories are difficult to understand.
Answer Choice (C) Computers possess none of the attributes of living things.
The correct version of (C) could go something like this: Computers lack some of the attributes of living things. Namely, volitional powers. But we cannot hastily generalize to the conclusion that computers lack all of the attributes of living things. Besides, that’s patently false. Computers are tangible; exist in the world; and are made of atoms. Those are attributes of living things as well.
Answer Choice (D) It is necessary to have volitional powers in order to think.
(D) is an odd answer. Based on the stimulus, we can infer that it is not necessary to have volitional powers in order to perform actions that are close-ish to thinking. That’s computers. No volitional powers but close-ish to thinking. How did that get twisted into: it is necessary to have volitional powers in order to think?
Unclear. But (D) is likely trying to bait you based on what you probably think in real life. “Humans think…and they have volitional powers. So maybe you need volitional powers to think?” This line of reasoning is flawed in several ways. First, the stimulus doesn’t tell us that humans think. Second, it doesn’t tell us that humans have volitional powers. And third, the stimulus doesn’t suggest that anything is necessary for thinking. We happen to know about certain things that don’t think – computers and animals. But we have no idea whether lack of volitional powers have anything to do with why those things don’t think.
Answer Choice (E) Computers will never be able to think as human beings do.
We don’t know what will happen in the future based on this stimulus. In our current world, computers don’t think. But they might be able to think as humans do in the future.
Marianne also assumes that she should not be held responsible for future humming, even though she has now been made aware of the fact that she hums. In other words, she assumes that nothing will change regarding the involuntary nature of her humming.