LR Question 1 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: In constructing a self-driving robotic car, engineers face…
QUESTION TYPE: Complete the Argument
CONCLUSION: Engineers designing self-driving cars should look at the principles fish use to navigate in schools.
REASONING: It’s difficult to design a self-driving car to avoid crashes and congestion. Fish face similar issues when traveling in schools, but have principles to reduce the problems.
ANALYSIS: The author here draws a comparison between the challenges of designing a car and the challenges fish face when swimming in schools.
This comparison is intentional, as we then learn that fish have ways of dealing with the problem. We can assume that the author brings up fish solutions as something for engineers to consider.
___________
- The author is not trying to say that the only way to solve these problems is to consult fish. It just might help.
- This isn’t what the author is saying. The author specifically brought up self-driving cars and engineers. It would be strange to pivot to talk about drivers and their techniques.
- “Always advisable” is strong. Not every problem can be solved by looking at the natural world. But the author is saying this one could be.
- CORRECT. This author is building an argument that engineers could use these principles to avoid the problems.
- This isn’t what the author is leading towards. The author isn’t comparing self-driving cars to human cars – it seems more like they are building an argument about solving this specific problem.
Recap: The question begins with “In constructing a self-driving robotic car, engineers face”. It is a Complete the Argument question. Learn how to master LSAT Complete the Argument questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
More Resources for Complete the Argument Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Complete the Argument questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers complete the argument questions.
A better reason to reject D is the fact that it draws a conclusion about an individual car, while the fish analogy is about the result of their collective behaviour: the fish in question achieve better outcomes compared to human-driven cars by adhering to certain principles as a group. It doesn’t follow that a single robotic car would be any better off at navigating the traffic according to said principles, while every other vehicle might not.
I’m assuming you’re referring to B, as D is the correct answer. While you’re right that B is nonsensical for that reason, Graeme’s explanations eliminates it before having to even evaluate the drivers vs. school comparison. The stimulus isn’t about drivers taking advice from fish (it’s about engineers doing so), so we don’t even have to evaluate whether drivers adopting that advice would make sense.
It’s good to reason why answers are wrong, but in general, if an answer (especially in a complete the argument question) completely fails to get at the core of the argument, the easiest basis to eliminate it on is exactly that. That saves you time from having to reason whether the answer makes sense or not. But your comment is indeed correct in the flaw about collective vs individual behavior!
Hi Aaminah,
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
Yes, D is the correct answer – my mistake, sorry. However, I was referring to E, not B (which is obviously irrelevant, as you have pointed out). However, I believe the distinction between individual and collective behavior can be a helpful consideration in eliminating E. Not to start a pointless argument but, to me at least, it is a stronger indication that E should be rejected than reliance on what the general thrust of the argument appears to be in this case. After all, the author does indirectly compare self-driving cars to human drivers inasmuch as the scientists in question are seeking to optimize road traffic. In light of that, although not the most obvious conclusion, E might seem somewhat germane.
Thanks for clarifying! I see the distinction you’re drawing, but it rests on a few assumptions that aren’t entirely supported. If I understand correctly, your point is that E should be eliminated on the basis that: “The navigation principles that fish use work because they’re exercised collectively. Since the self-driven car is just a single one, it would not reap those benefits, and therefore there is no basis to conclude it would be better than a human-driven car due to this added knowledge.”
But the stimulus never establishes that every benefit of fish navigation must and can only arise collectively. That would be an additional premise you’re introducing. The argument simply tells us that fish use certain principles that reduce traffic-type problems, it does not specify whether those principles function only collectively or could be translated into individual navigation algorithms. In fact, I’d argue it’s unreasonable to assume – based on the stimulus – that a single self-driven car could learn and improve NOTHING from the fish. Yes, the reasonable assumption is that you could not derive the full set of benefits unless all cars followed the same principles, but it’s a far jump to say you would derive NO benefits.
So the individual vs. collective behavior does create some contention, but here’s why I think ultimately it’s not the biggest issue. Let’s assume:
1. There’s modest improvements for the self-driven car from using fish principles. Then E is true, but it still depends on a further step the stimulus never supports: a claim about relative performance between autonomous and human drivers. The stimulus gives a reason engineers might study fish; it does not give evidence that a fish-inspired autonomous system would outperform human drivers.
2. There’s no improvements for the self-driven car from using fish principles.
2a: E could still be true. Maybe there’s other reasons aside from the fish principles that explain why self-driven cars are better than humans. It still doesn’t matter for the stimulus (which does not depend on comparing it to human drivers).
2b: E could be false. Again, it doesn’t matter for the stimulus because the main point isn’t to compare it to human drivers.
So, ultimately, you could use reasonable interpretations to justify why E might be true or false in terms of robotic cars being better. But ultimately this doesn’t matter because the stimulus doesn’t depend on nor try to argue for a relative comparison between robotic and human-driven cars. You’re right that engineers are trying to solve problems that occur in human road traffic, so at a broad motivational level there is some background connection to human performance. But the stimulus never concerns itself with the relative and exact performance of human drivers vs. fish-inspired autonomous systems. It only supports the more limited idea that fish navigation principles could be useful for engineers designing such cars. Concluding anything about which type of car would perform better requires an additional step that the argument simply doesn’t take.
Thank you very much for the detailed and perspicuous explanation. Your summation of my idea is accurate. However, I disagree with some of the analysis.
First of all, what is even at issue here – all things considered, D is the best answer, so why even bother with E? It’s because to me it comes deceptively close to actually making sense. Imagine the conclusion were: “Hence, self-driving carS using the navigational principles used by fish in schools would be better than human-driven carS at avoiding crashes and congestion,” with the implicature that that’s what the scientists working on the problem should look into.
That would make sense. Granted, “the scientists should” part isn’t spelled out explicitly, but the logic is there: Some bright minds are looking into replacing drivers with robots. The challenge is designing the robots to be better at avoiding the traffic problems that plague human-operated traffic. Fish are collectively superior to humans at an activity meaningfully similar to road traffic. Hence, robots that collectively behave like fish would be better than human drivers. (i.e. it would go some way towards overcoming the challenge mentioned). I’d say, were there no D, that would be the best answer. But even with D, I confess, it was enough to give me a pause. In other words, although it might not present the most straightforward sample of reasoning, I do not see quite the leap of faith you’ve described between comparing the collective road performance of humans and would-be “fish-minded” bots on the one hand and the explicitly stated aims of the researchers on the other. I’d say it is certainly more grounded than “at a broad motivational level.” Having finished every LSAT published since 1991, I have certainly seen more tenuous links confidently made. I am sure you’d agree.
That’s why I believe the distinction between collective and individual behavior is meaningful and deliberate in this case. You write that “the stimulus never establishes that every benefit of fish navigation must and can only arise collectively”. No, at least not in so many words. But it clearly suggests it about the particular benefits of the particular fish behavior under consideration by framing both the behavior and the benefits in collective terms: the problems the fish largely avoid, “travelling together in schools”, “the principles fish use to navigate in schools” (not a fish navigating schools of other fish), etc. I’d also maintain that it’s common sense to see road traffic as a collective endeavor and its state at large as a result of collective behavior: it is certainly possible to drive into a tree at one’s own leisure, but setting up a traffic jam all by one’s lonesome is hardly feasible. “[W]hether those [behavioral] principles function only collectively or could be translated into individual navigation algorithms” is largely irrelevant, so far as no individual benefit to the actor can be reasonably established. As far as “it’s unreasonable to assume – based on the stimulus – that a single self-driven car could learn and improve NOTHING from the fish” – we do not require that strong assumption. We are tasked to complete the argument in the best possible way, and the proverbial shoe is on the other foot: we have no reasonable grounds to assume that it can INDIVIDUALLY improve ANYTHING. An imperfect analogy, but suppose a neighbor’s child is having a lot of fun playing with her Leg@s. I want my child to have fun, so I present her with a single Leg@ piece. Now, we can’t rule out that she might somehow derive a lot of satisfaction from her single-brick experience – perchance, she might greatly enjoy its color or texture, who’s to say? But it in no way follows from my observing the neighbor’s kid’s playtime, because it’s common sense that handling a single piece isn’t what “playing with Leg@s” means.
To sum up, when it comes to E, we see its fatal flaw in different places. The appeal to the general thrust of the argument and its overall structure, although valid, doesn’t quite tip the scales for me the way clearly unreasonable (in my view, at least) assumptions about individual benefits of driving “the fish way” do. Combined with the weaker language (“could” vs “would”) and more moderate claims of D, it dispels any residual doubt.
I feel I should preface by mentioning that I took my LSAT some time ago, and the arguing I am doing here is purely “for the love of the game”. Please ignore the following if you feel I am grossly misinterpreting or misunderstanding your arguments, or if you believe having this discussion posted here is didactically or otherwise unhelpful. But since you took the time to pen a detailed answer, and having no other means of communication, I feel compelled to respond at some length.