Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: June 2006 Section 2 17 & 23  (Read 1908 times)

halftheloop

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
June 2006 Section 2 17 & 23
« on: November 29, 2007, 04:01:23 PM »
#17 Human beings can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior without conscious awareness of what they are doing. Thus, merely establishing that nonhuman animals are intelligent will not establish that they have consciousness.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Complex, goal-oriented behavior requires intelligence

I got this one totally by luck. Can someone explain this one, thanks.


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

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument's reasoning?
(B) The purported evidence that it cites in support of its conclusion presumes that the conclusion is true

I got this by eliminating all the ohter answers but i have no idea what this actually means.  I think I get that it's circular... right? Can someone explain the flaw here thanks.

luke

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Re: June 2006 Section 2 17 & 23
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2007, 05:06:27 PM »
17

this is an interesting one.  the word "thus" is what turns the 2 sentences into an argument.  without it, they would simply be two independent statements.

like so:

X does not necessitate Y

and

Z does not necessitate Y


but put a "thus" or a "therefore" in there and you have:

X does not necessitate Y

therefore

Z does not necessitate Y


in order for the "thus" to make sense, you have to have something that binds Z to X.  either:

Z = X

or

X --> Z

or

Z --> X

as it happens, A) corresponds to "Z --> X"


---------------------------------

23

circularity, exactly.

here's the structure of the argument:


"1) PA is not enough to understand CHB

want proof?

2) if we had PA,  we couldn't understand CHB"


not very convincing.  1) is the conclusion and 2) is the "evidence". 

halftheloop

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 144
    • View Profile
Re: June 2006 Section 2 17 & 23
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2007, 12:26:24 PM »
hey luke, thanks for the explanation. so just to be sure - the reason why i was confused by 17 was because i didnt understand how you knew that complex, goal-oriented behavior requires intelligence and is not the other way around. But according to your explanation, if an answer choice had said intelligence --> complex, goal oriented behavior, that could still work as an assumption right?

luke

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Re: June 2006 Section 2 17 & 23
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2007, 01:28:46 PM »
if an answer choice had said intelligence --> complex, goal oriented behavior, that could still work as an assumption right?

yessir

Ruttiger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: June 2006 Section 2 17 & 23
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2013, 12:56:36 PM »
if an answer choice had said intelligence --> complex, goal oriented behavior, that could still work as an assumption right?

yessir

No, it wouldn't.  For all that assumption says, intelligence could also entail consciousness. 

Ruttiger

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: June 2006 Section 2 17 & 23
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2013, 01:16:20 PM »
#17 Human beings can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior without conscious awareness of what they are doing. Thus, merely establishing that nonhuman animals are intelligent will not establish that they have consciousness.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Complex, goal-oriented behavior requires intelligence

I got this one totally by luck. Can someone explain this one, thanks.

So far as I can see, they are mistaken that the argument depends on (A).  "Depends on" means "couldn't do without".  But suppose there was a further answer choice:

(F)   Intelligence never guarantees anything more suggestive of consciousness than complex, goal-oriented behavior. 

If (F) is true, then learning that an animal is intelligent can't guarantee anything more than that it engages in complex, goal-oriented behavior.  Since a premise is that that doesn't require consciousness, we'd get our conclusion: we wouldn't be able to tell whether the intelligent animal is conscious.

And (F) does not entail (A).  It could be that there's plenty of complex, goal-oriented behavior without intelligence, but that intelligence never guarantees anything more than complex, goal-oriented behavior. 

Compare this argument:

People can be scientists without being smart.  Thus, merely establishing that someone is a biologist will not establish that he is smart.

The argument is valid if we add the assumption that establishing that someone is a biologist doesn't establish anything suggestive of smarts beyond suggesting that he is a scientist.  If that assumption is added, the argument is valid, even though it isn't true that being a scientist requires being a biologist. 

And note that although it is true that being a biologist requires being a scientist, that fact isn't enough to guarantee validity.  For there may be other things that follow from being a biologist than being a scientist, and those things may guarantee smarts. 

However, back to the original argument, it does seem that (A) is a sufficient assumption.  If complex, goal-oriented behavior requires intelligence, and doesn't suffice for consciousness, then intelligence doesn't suffice for consciousness. 

So had the question been a sufficient assumption question, no quarrel with (A).  But as it stands, (A) is not a good answer. 

ssilver0210

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 212
    • View Profile
    • Silverman Bar Preparation
    • Email
Re: June 2006 Section 2 17 & 23
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2013, 12:25:07 PM »
In regards to #17, it's important to keep in mind that the conclusion states we cannot determine the intelligence of nonhuman animals simply by first determining that those nonhuman animals exhibit consciousness. But what evidence is used to support that conclusion?  Only that human beings can exhibit goal-oriented behavior without conscious awareness of that behavior.  But what if it were true that complex-goal oriented behavior did not require intelligence?  If that were true, then the fact that human beings are able to exhibit such behavior would have no bearing on intelligence, and the conclusion regarding intelligence of non-human animals would fall entirely flat.   

Because negating that answer choice causes the conclusion to fall flat, that choice is an assumption on which the argument depends.

I provide tutoring both for the LSAT and the MBE at very reasonable rates.  I provide a free hour to all students to try out the tutoring.  Feel free to contact me at silvermanbarprep@gmail.com for tutoring inquires or to set up a free lesson. Visit my blog @ http://www.mbetutorial.blogspot.com