QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: The new behavior of the macaques was a result of learned social behavior and not genetics.
REASONING: Macaques were observed going into hot springs, which they had not done before. The habit was formed over a short period, 1963-1990.
ANALYSIS: This sounds persuasive, because the timeline is short and evolution takes a long time.
Yet we have no evidence why the macaques started going into the hot springs. Was it simply a learned behavior, or did a genetic change attract them to the springs?
___________
- The argument would actually be strengthened if this were false, since the stimulus argues that the changed behavior which occurred over a few decades was not genetic.
- CORRECT. If you negate this, you get “new behaviors are necessarily genetically predetermined.” That destroys the argument, as it means that the macaques started going into the hot springs as a result of genetics.
- This tells us when we can conclude something is genetic. The stimulus is concluding that the behaviors are not genetic. It’s a different situation.
- This goes too far. The macaques’ behavior need not be completely independent of their genetics. Rather in this specific instance their behavior must be different.
- It doesn’t matter whether the behavior lasts, as long as it initially occurred as a result of genetics.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply