Q23 - Essayist: Computers have the capacity

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Match the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Our brains are computers.
Premises:
Computer → Work with info
Brains can work with info

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is a typical example of an illegal reversal, but not our normal one. I call these "definitional" reversals. The argument creates a category (here, "computer") and tells us a characteristic of that category (here, working with information). It then tells us something else has the same characteristic. This is a flaw because there may be more characteristics necessary to being categorized in a certain way (a made up example here would be it needs to be manufactured or inorganic).

Correct Answer:
(C)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Conclusion mismatch. The often/probable of the premise/conclusion definitely throws the logic off here. Additionally, humans definitely fall under the category of "animal", whereas the flaw in the argument is that it assumes brains fall under the category of "computer".

(B) Conclusion mismatch. The Essayist's conclusion states that one thing is another. This conclusion states that we can't tell if two things are different. Those are different conclusions. In this answer, poetry and other arts might not be the same.

(C) Bingo. Organisms = computers; communities = brains. This answer gives us a characteristic of organisms and jumps to saying communities qualify in this category because they also have the characteristic.

(D) Everything mismatch. This answer choice doesn’t bring up a category, characteristics of that category, or an overlap between the elements and that characteristic.

(E) Conclusion mismatch. The premises are actually a pretty solid match (bringing up two things that share the same characteristics). However, the conclusion doesn't say that these other forms of cooperation are actually friendship, which is what we'd need in order for this to be the answer.

Takeaway/Pattern: When the LSAT gives you a characteristic describing something, it doesn't guarantee that anything matching that description falls under the category. View these descriptions as necessary elements, but not sufficient ones.

#officialexplanation

[yoohoo081]

Is this the proper way of thinking about the statement?

Statement:
Computers -> Represent + perform logical transformation
Humand Mind -> Represent + perform logical transformation
-------
Human mind -> type of computer

So, is below how C matches the flaw of the statment?
(C)
Organism-> component depend proper functioning of other component
Communities -> component depent proper functioning of other component (line that state invariably characterized by thisi same interdependence of components)
------
communites-> category of organism

Please let me know if this is the reason why C is true. If not, please correct me! Thank you,

[timmydoeslsat]

Exactly right.

The structure of the flawed reasoning in this stimulus is:

A ---> X
B ---> X

Therefore, B is a type of A.

The answer choice of (C) does the same flawed reasoning.

[ohthatpatrick]

Since you both nailed the stimulus and the correct answer, I'll just play clean-up duty and discuss the wrong answers.

For these Matching problems, one shortcut you can often use is to focus on the Conclusion of the original. The correct answer has to have a conclusion of its own that matches the type and strength of claim of the original conclusion.

Because our conclusion in the original is "B is a type of A", we can scan the answer choices to see if each one's conclusion is close enough to even make reading the full answer choice worthwhile.

A) concludes "it is probable that ....", which is a mismatch with the certainty of the original. No need to read further.

B) concludes "we cannot consider X a reasonable criterion for Y" ... I might tenuously hold onto it because at least it is sure of itself, but it doesn't seem to match the form of what we were going for

C) concludes "X belongs to the category of Y" ... very promising

D) concludes "anyone who is X is more likely to be Y" ... there was nothing comparative in the original conclusion, so this seems pretty safely wrong

E) concludes "X and Y both have some idea Z in common." ... this sounds temptingly familiar to the original argument, but it's not a good match for the original conclusion. The original argument was saying that because X and Y both have some idea Z in common (premise), that X is a type of Y (conclusion).

Ultimately, I'm not advocating that you pick you answer solely on the conclusion. However, these Matching problems can become rather time-consuming when you read through every single answer choice. If you initially screen all 5 answers based solely on similarity to the original conclusion, you may find you can quickly trim away 2 or 3 answers that aren't worth your time and focus on the 2 or 3 that actually have a prayer of being right.

[nflamel69]

Actually I didn't find E's conclusion to be similar to the argument at all.. First, in E, the conclusion is modified with "can", which is not so much as certainty as much as an expression of possibility. In addition, the conclusion in E jumps from obligations that are "painful and burdensome" to "goals other than self-interest", this kind of equivocation is generally wrong. What do you Geeks think?

[boy5237]

I thought this was actually converse fallacy?

Computer -> Capacity
Human mind has this thing.
Therefore Human is a computer.

Because having that necessary clause isn't enough to be a computer.

That's why C is right?

Organism -> functioning
Communities who has this characteristic (meaning it has functioning) must be an organism?

[wrosario2003]

Here are my two cents on the topic...

First the Diagramming of the Formal Logic...

1st Premise:

Computer --> capacity to represent + perform logical transformation

2nd Premise: (Is composed of the evidence indicated by the keyword "Since" then the comma "," indicating the conclusion; So it goes something like this:

"Since" same applies, (which means, capacity to represent + perform logical transformation), "conclusion" human mind is a type of computer.

*** When diagramming the evidence/ premise will always indicate the sufficient part and the conclusion will be the necessary.***

If we put all this together we can discern the logical flaw which is:

if,Computer --> then, capacity to represent + perform logical transformation

capacity to represent + perform logical transformation =Human Mind

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclude: human mind = Computer

this is the converse fallacy (a-->b, does not mean b-->a; for example; if i am in NY, then I am in USA. This does not mean that if I am in the USA, then I am in NY.)

If you closely read answer choice "C", it will be evident that the same is the only option that depict the aforementioned illogical pattern, hence making it the right choice.

Hope this is of any use...

Cordially,