Top Law Schools

Section 2 LR question #17.

I can see why the answer would be A, but I'm still not totally convinced. Is choice A really something required for the argument to be true?

I got this one wrong as well and like you still not conviced that is required. Would love an explanation.

I had it narrowed down to A and E. I think the language in the stimulus that says merely establishing animals are intelligent does not establish consciousness somehow means intelligence is required... ehhh

Sandro777 wrote:I had it narrowed down to A and E. I think the language in the stimulus that says merely establishing animals are intelligent does not establish consciousness somehow means intelligence is required... ehhh

Same. B C D I knew were 100% wrong...I was just confused because both A and E were vague and the question itself was confusing the hell out of me.

and re reading it I probably wouldnt have chosen E because Intelligent human behavior is out of scope ... I kind of see A, its just its so wishy washy and the jump the stimulus requires is odd.

THis is how I saw it..
If humans can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior WITHOUT consciousness,
then it means complex, goal-oriented behavior does not necessarily REQUIRE consciousness,
as it can happen without it. However, if (A) these behaviors require intelligence,
then humans exhibiting these behaviors would tell you that they are intelligent but not necessarily conscious.

On the other hand, if you assume (A) to be not true, (if these behaviors do not require intelligence)
then the premises would add up to nothing; humans exhibiting complex, goal-oriented behaviors would not
necessarily prove their intelligence nor consciousness.
Although the conclusion refers to nonhuman animals, since it is trying to establish
intelligent behavior ---> not necessarily conscious behavior, (A) would have to be assumed in order for
the conclusion to be properly drawn.

beautyhide wrote:THis is how I saw it..
If humans can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior WITHOUT consciousness,
then it means complex, goal-oriented behavior does not necessarily REQUIRE consciousness,
as it can happen without it. However, if (A) these behaviors require intelligence,
then humans exhibiting these behaviors would tell you that they are intelligent but not necessarily conscious.

On the other hand, if you assume (A) to be not true, (if these behaviors do not require intelligence)
then the premises would add up to nothing; humans exhibiting complex, goal-oriented behaviors would not
necessarily prove their intelligence nor consciousness.
Although the conclusion refers to nonhuman animals, since it is trying to establish
intelligent behavior ---> not necessarily conscious behavior, (A) would have to be assumed in order for
the conclusion to be properly drawn.

But...who said the premise had to add up to anything? That's what I was wondering...do we just assume that whenever there is a premise and an argument it has to add up to some coherent statement?

Either I am stupid or this is just a terrible question, but I still don't understand even with the explanation given above. It sort of "sounds better" in that it links the premise and conclusion together...compared to the other answer choices. But it seems better as a strengthen question or something...

"A" allows you to say that humans can be intelligent without consciousness (basically a reiteration of the conclusion in the stimulus, with humans instead of animals).

This in turn provides evidence for the conclusion that just proving intelligence in animals does not prove consciousness, since in humans, intelligence does not automatically entail consciousness.

Resurrecting this thread because I just took this test today. Would A work if the necessary and sufficient condition were reversed?

If intelligent, will exhibit some complex, goal-oriented behavior

I see why A is the best answer and I see why A allows the conclusion to be drawn. But this isn't a Justify the Conclusion question, so that makes me think I'm missing something. I don't see why reversing the conditional in choice A wouldn't also work.

complex behavior -/-> consciousness

Animals with intelligence --> complex behavior -/-> consciousness
Therefore animal intelligence -/-> consciousness

If that also works, then isn't A not a necessary assumption, but a sufficient assumption?

beautyistruth wrote:Resurrecting this thread because I just took this test today. Would A work if the necessary and sufficient condition were reversed?

If intelligent, will exhibit some complex, goal-oriented behavior

I see why A is the best answer and I see why A allows the conclusion to be drawn. But this isn't a Justify the Conclusion question, so that makes me think I'm missing something. I don't see why reversing the conditional in choice A wouldn't also work.

complex behavior -/-> consciousness

Animals with intelligence --> complex behavior -/-> consciousness
Therefore animal intelligence -/-> consciousness

If that also works, then isn't A not a necessary assumption, but a sufficient assumption?

If there is a wide enough gap in the argument (a sufficient gap -- for added confusion), doesn't the sufficient assumption also become the necessary assumption? That is the only way I can make sense of this bull shit

I think most of you guys are spiraling toward madness here; allow me to join
But seriously, the basic setup of the passage is as follows:

Premise: You can do A without C
Conclusion: Doing B doesn't prove the existence of C

This plays out much like a sufficient assumption problem, in that we have to make a link between the concepts of A and B. If we don't make that link, the assertion/conclusion is nonsensical and unsupported. Therefore our answer choice will have to bridge the ideas of complex, goal-oriented behavior and intelligence.

Notice that answer choice (E), while initially tempting, assumes something 1) that need not be true and 2) is unnecessary to draw the conclusion.
Applying the Negation Test to it, we get: All intelligent human behavior is complex OR goal-oriented. Doesn't destroy anything.

ETA- An assumption can be both necessary and sufficient at the same time. Don't let it trip you up.

TopHatToad wrote:I think most of you guys are spiraling toward madness here; allow me to join
But seriously, the basic setup of the passage is as follows:

Premise: You can do A without C
Conclusion: Doing B doesn't prove the existence of C

This plays out much like a sufficient assumption problem, in that we have to make a link between the concepts of A and B. If we don't make that link, the assertion/conclusion is nonsensical and unsupported. Therefore our answer choice will have to bridge the ideas of complex, goal-oriented behavior and intelligence.

Notice that answer choice (E), while initially tempting, assumes something 1) that need not be true and 2) is unnecessary to draw the conclusion.
Applying the Negation Test to it, we get: All intelligent human behavior is complex OR goal-oriented. Doesn't destroy anything.

ETA- An assumption can be both necessary and sufficient at the same time. Don't let it trip you up.

word, tophatttoad. i have begun to suspect that this is exactly what I was missing. This may be the final piece of the LR jigsaw puzzle for me. Thank you.