LSAT 159 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q13

LR Question 13 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: A cognitive psychologist has claimed that intelligence …

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The psychologist doesn’t have a good definition of intelligence.

REASONING: We clearly have a different definition of intelligence. We would believe something was intelligent if it understood things, even if it had no desire to overcome obstacles.

ANALYSIS: This question is confusingly abstract. The author is debating the definition of intelligence. You can disprove a definition by showing an example that doesn’t fit with it.

The author uses a hypothetical example to test the definition. The stimulus is basically saying:

Here’s a definition, and a hypothetical case. If we apply the definition to this hypothetical, we’d have to conclude that this being is not intelligent (even though it clearly is). So the definition is inadequate.

That may still be confusing, so let’s look at a more familiar example with a parallel structure:

• Foolish friend: I think the definition of a pet is this: a furry friend.
• You: What?! That’s obviously wrong. Imagine if you had a tame lizard you took care of or a furless cat. Those aren’t furry but everyone would agree they are pets.

If your lizard is a pet, then “a furry friend” is not a good definition of a pet. And, if the author’s being is intelligent, despite lacking a goal of overcoming obstacles, then overcoming obstacles doesn’t fit in with a definition of intelligence.

___________

1. The problem isn’t that it’s impractical to determine who’s intelligent, it’s that the definition gives wrong answers.
    
   The author actually applies the definition to a specific hypothetical, showing they think it is possible to apply the definition.
   Example of method: You say your instructions are good, but your instructions say “take the largest tool”. But one tool is really tall, one is really wide, one is really heavy. These are not good instructions.
2. CORRECT. The author applies the definition to a hypothetical being and shows that it yields an unacceptable conclusion (it would deny intelligence to a being we would clearly regard as intelligent). This is exactly how the argument works.
3. This contradicts the argument. The author’s entire evidence is that they do apply the definition to a hypothetical situation. And, this hypothetical application shows the definition is not a good one.
    
   This answer says you can’t apply the definition to specific cases.
   Example of method: Your recipe says “add a good amount of flour”, then bake. This idea of “a good amount” may be clear to you, but I do not know how much flour you mean. It is not possible for me to follow this recipe.
4. This is really close, but it’s actually the opposite of what the author is claiming. The author gave an example of a being we would call intelligent, but which the definition would call “not intelligent”. That means the author thinks the definition is too narrow.
    
   This answer describes something too broad.
   Example of method: You say “intelligence is anything that can move.” That is not a good definition. Certainly, it includes humans and animals, which are intelligent. But it also includes my car, which can move but is not intelligent. Your definition is too broad, we do not normally call a car intelligent.
5. No appeal to authority is discussed. The psychologist’s supporters aren’t even mentioned.