Q17

[skapur777]

Just wondering how to approach these questions.

Do we just take STRICTLY the lines in question in the answer choices or the overall intent/meaning behind these answer choices?

Because according to the choices, D most clearly shows that the frog calls are not due to conscious intention but rather due to some sort of conditioned response.

but the macaques example, when looked at in the passage, also can provide such evidence of lack of conscious intention. regardless i didn't choose E because the answer choice itself just said "macaques give alarm calls when predators approach and cool calls upon finding food". just looking at that answer choice BY ITSELF it could be interpreted as either evidence for or against...cuz it doesn't say anything at all either way and you would have to make additional assumptions.

right track?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

but the macaques example, when looked at in the passage, also can provide such evidence of lack of conscious intention.

I think this is where the folks who write the LSAT would disagree with you. The macaques example is more about the lack of perception of another's need for information. Whereas the frogs example is more about the lack of knowledge or attributing knowledge to other frogs.

The assertion in (line 50-52) is about conscious intention. Deciding between "perception of another's need" and "knowledge or attributing knowledge to another," I would say the latter is a better match for "conscious intention."

But it's definitely close and worthy of double checking before choosing answer choice (D).

(A) goes in the wrong direction if we take "function" as intention. This would represent the opposite of what we want as it would undermine the assertion in passage B.
(B) goes in the wrong direction if we take "alter behavior" as intention. It too would undermine the assertion in passage B.
(C) goes in the wrong direction if we take "attribute mental states" as intention. It too would undermine the assertion in passage B.
(E) goes in the wrong direction if we take "different calls" as intention. It too would undermine the assertion in passage B. And if we take the macaques example with the further information around it, it would only suggest a lack of perception of another's need - not the same as conscious intention.

Hope that helps... and let me know if you have any other questions on this one!

[stol1989]

Hi Matt.
I'd like to debate about AC "C" and "D".

In your response to skapur777 you suggested to treat answers in the surrounding context.

We need to support Maritain's view: "Although bees returning to the hive communicate to other bees the distance and direction of food sources, such communication merely a conditional reflex: animals may use communicative signs but llack conscious intention regarding their use"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"E" Macaques give alarm calls when predators approach and coo calls upon finding food

Passage A says:
"Research also suggest that...nonhuman primates do not produce vocalizations in response to perception of another's need for information" and "...chimpanzees do not appear to adjust their calling to inform ignorant individuals of their own location or that of food."

Therefore information about macaques vocalization supports following:

All macaques in pack know about banana tree nearby - our macaque gives 3 coo calls;
Only our macaque knows about banana tree nearby - it gives 3 coo calls.

It looks like an EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE of intention.

Moreover "conditional reflex" in Maritain's view aligns with conditional structure of "E":
If predators approach --> Alarm call
If food is found --> Coo call

You pointed out that

The macaques example is more about the lack of perception of another's need for information

I respectfully disagree.

Last sentence of passage A says: "Many animal vocalizations whose production initially seems goal-directed are not as purposeful as they first appear." This looks like a conclusion and all what above like premises. So macaques example is indeed about lack of perception but in wider context it is used like premise "evidence" to justify the conclusion. Therefore macaque vocalization example supports idea that animal vocalization lacks intention.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"D" says " There is no evidence that Physalaemus frog calls because he knows that this call will affect the knowledge of other frogs.

I see this AC like ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE of intention among animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally the point I am leading to is like follows:
"E" Evidence of absence of intention
VS
"D" Absence of evidence of intention

Authority of LSAT suggests me that there is a mistake in my reasoning, but I can't find where .
Please help!!!

[inesa909]

I, too, am having a hard time differentiating between (D) and (E).

I understand that the example with the Macaques was presented to show how animals responses to stimuli did not change according to their knowledge of whether or not the information would help other individuals.

At the same time, I do see how the Macaques and the Physalaemus frogs were not using "conscious intention" and were acting out of a "conditioned reflex" which is what Maritain was arguing with the bee example.

Also, I was wondering whether the fact that the question asks, "which of the following assertions from passage A...."; because I could see how (D) could be considered an assertion and how it could not be the case for (E). I'm not sure that's something the LSAC considers or if I am just being nitpicky.

Any help on this conundrum would be greatly appreciated.

[maryadkins]

Good question. Don't use "assertion" to distinguish between answer choices like this. (E) is as much as an assertion as (D) for LSAT purposes, assertion just means something presented as true.

[steves]

I've been similarly unconvinced as to the real difference between (D) and (E) as several of those above. Now that I'm re-reading it, the passage reference to (E) on lines 18-22 is on "non human primates." In this regard, bees are closer to frogs in that they are not primates--so (D) would be more relevant.

[513852276]

Could we treat D and E as assertions by itself, regardless of its purpose in Passage A? Hence, although E is used to argue for "communication without attention", this assertion itself do nothing to support the conclusion, or it even accounts for a concession, as it follows "yet...". In comparison, assertion D Itself includes "there is no evidence......", hence it directly support the pointed view in Passage B?

Hi Matt.
I'd like to debate about AC "C" and "D".

In your response to skapur777 you suggested to treat answers in the surrounding context.

We need to support Maritain's view: "Although bees returning to the hive communicate to other bees the distance and direction of food sources, such communication merely a conditional reflex: animals may use communicative signs but llack conscious intention regarding their use"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"E" Macaques give alarm calls when predators approach and coo calls upon finding food

Passage A says:
"Research also suggest that...nonhuman primates do not produce vocalizations in response to perception of another's need for information" and "...chimpanzees do not appear to adjust their calling to inform ignorant individuals of their own location or that of food."

Therefore information about macaques vocalization supports following:

All macaques in pack know about banana tree nearby - our macaque gives 3 coo calls;
Only our macaque knows about banana tree nearby - it gives 3 coo calls.

It looks like an EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE of intention.

Moreover "conditional reflex" in Maritain's view aligns with conditional structure of "E":
If predators approach --> Alarm call
If food is found --> Coo call

You pointed out that

The macaques example is more about the lack of perception of another's need for information

I respectfully disagree.

Last sentence of passage A says: "Many animal vocalizations whose production initially seems goal-directed are not as purposeful as they first appear." This looks like a conclusion and all what above like premises. So macaques example is indeed about lack of perception but in wider context it is used like premise "evidence" to justify the conclusion. Therefore macaque vocalization example supports idea that animal vocalization lacks intention.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"D" says " There is no evidence that Physalaemus frog calls because he knows that this call will affect the knowledge of other frogs.

I see this AC like ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE of intention among animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally the point I am leading to is like follows:
"E" Evidence of absence of intention
VS
"D" Absence of evidence of intention

Authority of LSAT suggests me that there is a mistake in my reasoning, but I can't find where .
Please help!!!

[zcxlwj]

When tackling this type of question, should we assess the quoted sentences on their face value, or evaluate them in the context of the passage?

If the former, we might be able to eliminate E) more readily, since the sentence as a stand-alone does not address the reasoning behind their behavior (i.e., the lack of perception), just that they do.

[Camiller]

Hey Patrick, will you please provide an explanation on this one? And will you please specifically address why (E) is incorrect and (D) is correct.

Also, for a question stem like this ("which one of the following assertions"), should we strictly consider the words in the answer choice as support, or should we consider the answer choice and the surrounding context/text?

[LolaC289]

I see this AC like ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE of intention among animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally the point I am leading to is like follows:
"E" Evidence of absence of intention
VS
"D" Absence of evidence of intention

Authority of LSAT suggests me that there is a mistake in my reasoning, but I can't find where .
Please help!!!

I think your way of thinking makes great sense! (I'm not an authority though!)

I just want to share why I chose (D) instead of (E) during my test. I actually didn't look back to the text again to look for respective context, since I think the sentence presented in (D) ("there is no evidence that......") is already so much better than that of (E) for this task. (E) only presented a factual statement, by itself.

Normally in this case, I would not go back again to check it (because I may worry about the time), but I want to look at it for review. One thing I don't agree in your post is that you say (E) presented "evidence of absence of intention". But if you look closely to where (E) is at, you'll see that it is actually the same with (D) in this respect, also just "absence of evidence of intention". Line 22: "(mascques and coos)......reveal NO EVIDENCE that individuals were......"

Thus for supporting force, the examples in (D) and (E) are about the same when we turn back to the text. Since (D) is presented much more clearly, I think (D) is better than (E).