Q17 - Most people believe that yawning

[michaeljanati]

I am having difficulty understanding why (D) is the answer. Please help. Thanks!

[noah]

Let's take a look and try not to yawn..

The conclusion of this argument is that the most irresistible cause of yawning is seeing someone else yawn. Why? Because pop culture historians say that this belief is common all over, both today and previously.

There are two gaps that I see. For one, are we to believe these historians? The conclusion assumes we do. Also, just because everyone says something is X, does it mean it actually is X? Perhaps everyone thinks we yawn mostly because we see others yawn, but they forget that we generally yawn because we're tired! The conclusion is establishing a scientific fact, but the premise is popular opinion. (D) points out this issue.

(A) is not true - the conclusion is different than the premises.
(B) is tempting! I had to think a while about why this one is wrong. Go ahead and fill in the blank to make this answer perfect:

It cites the evidence of _______________ in support of a claim that lies outside their area of expertise.

We should put "people" in there, not "historians." The argument doesn't cite the historian's statement as the evidence, it's the opinions of all the people, which the historians happen to convey (and the argument states, "if we are to believe them").
(C) is incorrect because the evidence is not based on a limited number of cases.
(E) is tempting if you think the conclusion is that seeing others yawn is the only cause. But the argument is that it's the most irresistible one.

Does that clear it up?

[wguwguwgu]

I still don't understand why B is wrong.

I see what Noah is saying -- the evidence came from the belief of PEOPLE that was conveyed by the historians. But isn't this also a citation from the historians? The very act of "conveying" is giving us the evidence we can use. I just don't see what is wrong with the wording here.

Other sources say that "outside of their area of expertise " is wrong because what people used to believe is INSIDE their area of expertise. I disagree with this too --- I think the claim is not about people's belief, it is about the triggering of yawning, which is a physiological phenomenon and indeed outside the expertise of a historian.

Many thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Other sources say that "outside of their area of expertise " is wrong because what people used to believe is INSIDE their area of expertise. I disagree with this too --- I think the claim is not about people's belief, it is about the triggering of yawning, which is a physiological phenomenon and indeed outside the expertise of a historian.

This is a tough question for sure! The claim the historians are making is not about whether a physiological phenomenon (yawning) is most powerfully triggered by seeing someone else yawn. Rather it is about "this belief about yawning." And whether the belief was (or was not) widely held in many parts of the world in the past is a question within the purview of historians of popular culture.

Sorry to disagree with you on this one, but let me know if you still see it differently!

[WaltGrace1983]

Wouldn't (B) be wrong for the simple reason that we have no idea about what the expertise of these historians is?

[ohthatpatrick]

Well, a historian of popular culture is presumably an expert when it comes to the history of popular culture.

A biologist's area of expertise could be assumed to be biology.

Certainly, within these academic fields, an individual's expertise might be even more narrowly drawn and distinguished from another individual in the same general field.

But for the purposes of LSAT, in assessing whether a certain testimonial is qualified to weigh in on an issue, we can broadly say things like,

"Don't get a testimonial from a biologist on an issue that requires expertise about computer programming."

or

"Don't get a testimonial from a historian of popular culture on an issue [such as the cause of yawning] that requires expertise about biology."

However, as Matt said before, this argument doesn't cite the cultural historians for an opinion on whether yawning is caused by seeing someone else yawn.

Instead, the argument cites the cultural historian for an opinion on whether people in many cultures past and present tend to believe that seeing someone yawn causes yawning.

[AnaJ991]

Can someone explain why yawning is "largely factual" and why something that - if granted - is largely factual cannot validly be supported by appealing solely to opinions?

Thanks in advance.

[LyV221]

My first comment in this forum...I got this question wrong to B the first time as well due to the confusion over the "historians" thing.

If you re-read the conclusion, the language is "...must be the most irresistible cause of yawning". This seems to be a very bold statement and the word choice seems to be very scientific and intellectual to me. That's why this is a "largely factual" matter. The author does not even say anything like "I think" to signal that this statement is purely his own opinion. He just goes ahead and concludes that this is the FACT that the most irresistible cause of yawning is seeing someone else yawn.

For the second part of your question, that a lot of people believe in something (purely their own opinions, right?) does not guarantee that the belief itself is "factually" true, right? Like people used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe though this is, as later proved in our history, not "factually" correct. I think I need to stress the "solely" in this answer choice because I feel this is the strongest element that makes this answer choice perfect. I would think that we should be fine sometimes to bank on popular belief to support for a conclusion but "solely" using it to make such a strong conclusion about a fact is not ok.

Hope this helps and excuse my explanation if you find it bad. English is my second language!

[HazelZ814]

Well, a historian of popular culture is presumably an expert when it comes to the history of popular culture.

A biologist's area of expertise could be assumed to be biology.

Certainly, within these academic fields, an individual's expertise might be even more narrowly drawn and distinguished from another individual in the same general field.

But for the purposes of LSAT, in assessing whether a certain testimonial is qualified to weigh in on an issue, we can broadly say things like,

"Don't get a testimonial from a biologist on an issue that requires expertise about computer programming."

or

"Don't get a testimonial from a historian of popular culture on an issue [such as the cause of yawning] that requires expertise about biology."

However, as Matt said before, this argument doesn't cite the cultural historians for an opinion on whether yawning is caused by seeing someone else yawn.

Instead, the argument cites the cultural historian for an opinion on whether people in many cultures past and present tend to believe that seeing someone yawn causes yawning.

Thanks for the detailed explanation! Will choice B be better if we replace "direct support" with "indirect support"? What I mean is that historians of popular culture supported people's belief, and people's belief supported the author's conclusion directly.

[JeremyK460]

breakdown:
premise: it's believed that seeing someone yawn is the most powerful cause of yawning (call it 'X')
premise: historians assert that 'X' has persisted over time

conclusion: 'X' must be true.

analysis:
it's widely believed that 'X' happens
historians back this up
BUT it's still totally possible that 'X' isn't true

answer choices:
b) is talking about an inappropriate appeal to authority/expertise and the argument's conclusion is about something that is the most pervasive in a society, and since the conclusion has to do with a quality of a society, i can comfortably say that an appeal to the historian 'of society/culture' is pretty appropriate.

d) is talking about how the premise is opinion-based (since the premise asserts beliefs of the populace and beliefs of the experts, and beliefs are not necessarily facts/factual) while the conclusion is factually based (since the conclusion asserts that 'X' is true).