Q19

[Acing LSAT]

This is my take on this:

We are looking for an underling assumption in passage A which passage B does not agree with.

We are not looking for a fact or an example that B would agree with

(A) B could live with this. This is not an assumption at and physical features are not discussed.

(B) Tempting but wrong. B could agree about the past, B does not agree all current actions are the result of evolutionary influences.

(C) YES. See P1 of both passage A and B. This is the concept of EP which B is against.

(D) animals not mentioned

(E) B could live with this. B is against viewing current behavior as the result of past.

[rinagoldfield]

Great work, Acing LSAT!

Just a couple of notes about the answer choices. We’re looking for an answer choice that matches three criteria:

1. It offers an assumption.
2. The author of Passage A agrees with the assumption.
3. The author of Passage B disagrees with the assumption.

(A) B could live with this. This is not an assumption at and physical features are not discussed.

(A) I agree that this isn’t an assumption, but the author of passage A does discuss physical features in line 16. However, he argues that physical resemblances cause altruism, not that evolutionary pressures cause physical resemblances.

(B) Tempting but wrong. B could agree about the past, B does not agree all current actions are the result of evolutionary influences.

(B) The author of passage B never actually compares current actions to past actions.
This answer choice is better eliminated by the extreme modifiers "any" and "necessarily." The author of passage A supports the theory behind evolutionary psychology, but there’s no evidence to suggest he believes every single human action can be explained by EP. Answer choice (B) doesn’t match the second criterion.
Always look out for extreme modifiers like "any," "all," etc.

(C) YES. See P1 of both passage A and B. This is the concept of EP which B is against.

Yup. (C) matches all three criteria, and isn’t overly strong. It discusses human behavior "in evolutionary terms," not human behavior in general. Nice and specific, and exactly what we’re looking for.

(D) animals not mentioned

Yes. (D) is out of scope.

(E) B could live with this. B is against viewing current behavior as the result of past.

(E) I agree that the author of Passage B could live with this assumption, since he doesn’t address the issue of eliminating behaviors. He can’t disagree with something he doesn’t mention!

However, note that his main issue with EP isn’t that it explains present behavior in terms of the past. Rather, he believes that EP is overly reductive. Check out his last paragraph for support: "maybe yes, maybe no; this kind of inference needs to be handled with great care..." The author of Passage B believes that human behavior is too complex to be explained by EP alone.

[hyewonkim89]

Great work, Acing LSAT!

Just a couple of notes about the answer choices. We’re looking for an answer choice that matches three criteria:

1. It offers an assumption.
2. The author of Passage A agrees with the assumption.
3. The author of Passage B disagrees with the assumption.

(A) B could live with this. This is not an assumption at and physical features are not discussed.

(A) I agree that this isn’t an assumption, but the author of passage A does discuss physical features in line 16. However, he argues that physical resemblances cause altruism, not that evolutionary pressures cause physical resemblances.

(B) Tempting but wrong. B could agree about the past, B does not agree all current actions are the result of evolutionary influences.

(B) The author of passage B never actually compares current actions to past actions.
This answer choice is better eliminated by the extreme modifiers "any" and "necessarily." The author of passage A supports the theory behind evolutionary psychology, but there’s no evidence to suggest he believes every single human action can be explained by EP. Answer choice (B) doesn’t match the second criterion.
Always look out for extreme modifiers like "any," "all," etc.

(C) YES. See P1 of both passage A and B. This is the concept of EP which B is against.

Yup. (C) matches all three criteria, and isn’t overly strong. It discusses human behavior "in evolutionary terms," not human behavior in general. Nice and specific, and exactly what we’re looking for.

(D) animals not mentioned

Yes. (D) is out of scope.

(E) B could live with this. B is against viewing current behavior as the result of past.

(E) I agree that the author of Passage B could live with this assumption, since he doesn’t address the issue of eliminating behaviors. He can’t disagree with something he doesn’t mention!

However, note that his main issue with EP isn’t that it explains present behavior in terms of the past. Rather, he believes that EP is overly reductive. Check out his last paragraph for support: "maybe yes, maybe no; this kind of inference needs to be handled with great care..." The author of Passage B believes that human behavior is too complex to be explained by EP alone.

Where in the Passage B can you find that Author B disagrees with (C)?

Thanks in advance!

[tian.application]

hyewonkim89,

Here is what I see from C:

in passage B paragraph 3 it says:

evolutionary theory maybe applicable to a lot of different kinds of behaviors but
"What is needed is to make it decisive that a particular interest explains a particular behavior is that the behavior would be reasonable ONLY IF one had that interest.

I think the author of passage B is arguing that evolutionary theory maybe an aspect of interests that contributed to that behavior, but not necessary the sufficient one. But on the other hand author of A indeed acknowledge that evolutionary theory's legitimacy. That is where they disagree.

Any comment?

[amil91]

hyewonkim89,

Here is what I see from C:

in passage B paragraph 3 it says:

evolutionary theory maybe applicable to a lot of different kinds of behaviors but
"What is needed is to make it decisive that a particular interest explains a particular behavior is that the behavior would be reasonable ONLY IF one had that interest.

I think the author of passage B is arguing that evolutionary theory maybe an aspect of interests that contributed to that behavior, but not necessary the sufficient one. But on the other hand author of A indeed acknowledge that evolutionary theory's legitimacy. That is where they disagree.

Any comment?

I agree with you, but I think reading the illustrated example in passage B - lines 60-66, makes it even more clear than the only if language. A sufficient condition guarantees the necessary, but it in itself isn't necessary for the necessary condition. He is basically saying that these EP people are making explanations in the wrong direction. Just because something is sufficient for a given outcome doesn't mean that it is necessary and thus have to be there in an evolutionary sense. However, going the other direction, looking for the necessary side, that does have to be there, hence the ONLY IF language.

[maria487]

Hmm, I got all questions right on this passage besides this one. I chose B. I realize it is strong, but I thought it was supported.

I think we can say that author B would disagree with this, given lines 64-66. He would reply that, not every motive can be attributed to genes; some actions have to be "just for their own sakes."

But why would author A not ascribe to this assumption? According to lines 3-7, evolutionary psychology assumes reproductive success/genetic proliferation as the base of all early human motivation. Why can we not impute this to author A?

[ohthatpatrick]

For an answer choice to be right, we'd have to say
1. Psg A did assume this
2. Psg B disagrees

I think you're right that the author of B would disagree with (B). I just think it's way too extreme (as you suspected) to accuse psg A of having assumed it.

The lines you cited don't say that
"evolutionary psychology assumes reproductive success/genetic proliferation as the base of all early human motivation"

Those lines are saying that evolutionary psychology attempts to explain all human behavior by examining how it contributes to reproductive success.

From that standpoint, it seems like some behaviors will be argued to contribute to reproductive success, and those behaviors would be considered adaptive. Other behaviors will work against reproductive success and those behaviors would be considered ones we can expect to see disappear more and more from the gene pool. Other behaviors may be neutral to reproductive success.

Choice (B) is saying "EVERY SINGLE ACTION was orchestrated by genes." Every time you kicked a rock, ripped up a blade of grass, whistled, etc. .. those are all orchestrated by your genes?

I don't know that evolutionary psychologists are THIS deterministic.

Even if they were, then, no, we cannot say that the author of Passage A believes wholeheartedly in evolutionary psychology.

The author isn't necessarily an evolutionary psychologist. She may just be concerned with an overlapping question: where does altruism come from?

Her explanation, in line 13 and line 34, indicates speculation. "the answer probably lies" ... "genes promoting their own self-propagation may thus operate"

[Didius Falco]

I agree with everything that has been said about the excessive strength of (B). Further, in case it's helpful to anyone, I was able to eliminate it by making a common sense inference about genetic selection:

If genetic success is selecting for some proliferating traits; then there are, almost certainly, also some non-proliferating, unsuccessful, traits.

In other words, if early humans have some traits that will be reproductively successful, and those are propagated, then there are probably also some traits that were not reproductively successful, and were not propagated.

The whole point of Passage A is that the behaviors that have endured and proliferated in the early human population are probably those that help propagate the genes underlying them. But (B) says "any action performed by an early human". So (B) is so vastly over-expansive that it is including all sorts of behaviors that may not have helped anyone, and may not have survived at all! It includes any behavior of any early human or humans...even those that did not last long enough for us try to explain them in the modern population (in other words--those that were not reproductively successful).

Examples are easy to imagine, but take, for instance, a fellow in the early human population who likes to brawl incessantly with his fellow group-members. The guy may have acquired a nasty reputation, and died of starvation when his fellows were unwilling to share. This behavior (combative interactions with fellow group-members) is still an action performed by an early human.
It certainly wouldn't be explained genetic propensity to propagate---as it is not a successful trait, and the genes coding for it die out relatively quickly!

By phrasing (B) is such strong terms, allowing it to cover any behavior performed by even a single early human, the test-writers are making this essentially impossible to support, even for Passage A's speaker.