LSAT 108 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q25

LR Question 25 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Anthropologist: After mapping the complete dominance hierarchy …

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

ARGUMENTS: ANTHROPOLOGIST’S ARGUMENT: We assumed every monkey knows hierarchy and used that assumption to accurately predict complex group behavior. So that assumption must be true.

PRIMATOLOGIST’S ARGUMENT: Your conclusion makes no sense. A false assumption can still produce accurate predictions.

ANALYSIS: The primatologist takes the anthropologist’s reasoning and applies it to a different case:

Anthropologist’s logic: Accurate prediction using assumption X. Therefore, X is true.

Primatologist’s analogy: Accurate prediction using assumption Y (cash machines have desires). Therefore, Y is true.

The second conclusion is absurd.

So the primatologist is showing that the reasoning pattern itself is flawed by using an analogy that shows how ridiculous it is.

___________

1. The primatologist doesn’t cite facts that would be impossible if monkeys knew the hierarchy.
2. The primatologist doesn’t start by denying the anthropologist’s conclusion. He attacks the reasoning, not the conclusion itself.
3. CORRECT. He uses an analogy about ATMs with the same logic to show how ridiculous the reasoning is.
4. He never attacks the anthropologist’s expertise or knowledge.
5. No scientific term is being reinterpreted.