I chose the correct answer on this one! However, I have a question about B.
I feel that the problem with B is that it's just a restatement of the conclusion with some words changed here and there.
Essentially, the conclusion says creativity ability to solve.
B is saying ~(problem is solved) ~(creativity) OR
Creativity problem solved.
The problem with B is that the conclusion is about "ability to solve", but B) talks about solving problems. --- big leap.
Is my understanding correct? Please help me
I cannot thank this forum for helping in solving LR problems. It's a godsend for me.
#14 - Over 90 percent of the human brain currently serves
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
I think we're on familiar ground here, in that you are trying again to put this question into a conditional framework that isn't entirely appropriate. There are no conditional indicators in the conclusion to this argument. We could do as you are trying to do and re-word it to something like "if we have creativity and innovation, then we will have the ability to resolve", but even if we do, you have already hit on one of the two main problems with answer B, which is that is talks about "solving" rather than "ability to solve".
I think that even more important than that is the use of "only" in answer B. That's a pretty extreme choice of language, and there's nothing in the argument to suggest that tapping into the unused parts of our brains is the only way to gain the ability to solve those problems - just that it is one way to do it. If we were to try to put this into a conditional framework, answer B would be saying that the author mistakenly assumed that X is the ONLY thing sufficient for Y. The author didn't make that kind of conditional error here - if it was conditional at all, then all he did was posit a conditional relationship, and he said nothing to suggest that there could be no other circumstances under which Y could occur.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
I have a question about these types of flaw questions. I understand we are supposed to find the flaw in the reasoning, but is there a situation where we ever question the evidence provided by the argument? For example in a question like this, we are told over 90 percent of the human brain currently serves no purpose because of the evidence seen in people with significant brain damage. Do we take that statement for what it is, as a valid statement, at face value? For the purpose of clarity, is there any reason to ever question the validity of the evidence provided in a flaw question? I find that is something that always throws me off. So I chose C when I took the test because I questioned the validity of the evidence (after all, who's to say 90 percent of the brain serves no purpose by just looking at a sample of people with brain damage), but when I reviewed the question, I assumed that the evidence provided was valid and chose E. I feel like I'm confusing myself somewhat in trying to figure out when to assume the contents of the stimulus as valid, when to question/not question the stimulus, and when to bring in outside information. Thanks for any guidance!
Good question! The answer is: very rarely do you question the evidence (and really: hardly ever). Typically, they let the evidence stand as true. What gets questioned is the conclusion drawn from that evidence. so, they will allow causal statements, conditional, numerical facts, etc, stand as acceptable; it's where the author goes from there that becomes the focus.
Does that make sense? Please let me know. Thanks!
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
4 posts • Page 1 of 1