PrepTest 34 Section 3 Q 17

mz253
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:18 pm

PrepTest 34 Section 3 Q 17

Postby mz253 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:44 pm

Narrow down to C and D. But have difficulty knock out C. I tried the negation test. But if signaling each other with sounds or gestures, animals are referring to some sort of concrete objects or abstract ideas...seems that the argument is weakened... wonder why it's not that case?

TTTeacher
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:22 pm

Re: PrepTest 34 Section 3 Q 17

Postby TTTeacher » Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:19 pm

Here's the argument in the stimulus:

Premise 1: Animals signal each other with sounds and gestures.

Premise 2: Scientists have not proven that these signals refer to anything concrete or abstract.

Conclusion: Scientists have not proven that animals posses language abilities.

The assumption must connect the ability to refer to concrete objects or abstract ideas with language. C doesn't do this.

mz253
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: PrepTest 34 Section 3 Q 17

Postby mz253 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:15 pm

yeah, i get this, but how did you knock off B using the negation test?

TTTeacher wrote:Here's the argument in the stimulus:

Premise 1: Animals signal each other with sounds and gestures.

Premise 2: Scientists have not proven that these signals refer to anything concrete or abstract.

Conclusion: Scientists have not proven that animals posses language abilities.

The assumption must connect the ability to refer to concrete objects or abstract ideas with language. C doesn't do this.

User avatar
yoni45
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:12 am

Re: PrepTest 34 Section 3 Q 17

Postby yoni45 » Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:28 pm

(I assume you meant (C)?)

This is a rough one, but the issue you're looking at is one of burden of proof --

The argument isn't trying to prove that it's not a language. The argument is merely trying to prove that the sounds and gestures don't prove that it's a language.

We don't necessarily need to assume that the signals aren't actually concrete objects or abstract ideas -- even if they were sometimes referring to concrete objects or abstract ideas, it wouldn't change the fact that the existence of signals doesn't prove that that they're referring to concrete objects or abstract ideas.

In other words, they might be referring to such ideas -- this doesn't change the fact that the sounds themselves don't necessarily prove that they are.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: StopLawying and 5 guests