LSAT 36, Logical Reasoning II, Q16, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Herpetologist: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption 

CONCLUSION: Reptiles can’t do complex reasoning.

REASONING: Reptiles can’t always make major alterations in their behavior. 

ANALYSIS: This is full of science-y words, but the reasoning isn’t complex. The only piece of evidence is that reptiles can’t make major changes. The argument is assuming that reptiles could make major changes if they could do complex reasoning.

The assumption is: can do complex reasoning ➞ can make major changes.

___________

1. The negation is: animals can make major changes even if they aren’t capable of complex reasoning. This doesn’t hurt the argument: reptiles can’t make major changes. 
2. This would be helpful, but it isn’t necessary. There could be a middle ground between simple response behaviors and complex reasoning.
3. This would strengthen the argument, but it isn’t necessary. There are other explanations for the reptiles’ behavior apart from complex reasoning.
4. CORRECT. If reptiles couldn’t make changes to their behavior even if they were capable of complex reasoning then this argument proves nothing. The only evidence presented is that reptiles can’t make changes. 
5. Even if complex reasoning and responses to stimuli could both contribute to complex behavior, it isn’t clear why that should mean that reptiles can do complex reasoning. 

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---