LSAT 23 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q11

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: A severe blow to the head can cause one to lose…

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: We need more evidence to know that consciousness cannot survive death.

REASONING: The brain might be like a radio. A radio transmits a program, but the program doesn’t disappear if the radio breaks. Similarly, consciousness might still exist even once the brain breaks.

ANALYSIS: This is a good argument. We do need more evidence to know that consciousness ends with the brain.

The radio serves as an analogy to clarify the argument. It doesn’t prove anything, but it makes the idea much easier to understand.

___________

1. Radios can’t prove anything about the brain. The radio analogy just clarifies the idea.
2. A counterexample disproves a point. So, if someone argues that no women were famous scientists, Marie Curie is a counterexample. Her example disproves the false claim.
    
   A radio can’t disprove much about the brain. The radio analogy just clarifies things.
3. CORRECT. We don’t assume radio programs disappear when radios break, so why do we assume consciousness disappears when the brain breaks?
4. The argument did not claim that consciousness survives the brain (see the last line of the stimulus). It only argued we need more evidence to know for sure.
5. The argument argues the opposite. We know that a radio program can exist even if the material evidence (the radio) stops working.

Recap: The question begins with “A severe blow to the head can cause one to lose”. It is a Role in Argument question. Learn how to master LSAT Role questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.