#19 - In an experiment, researchers played a series of music

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—CE. The correct answer choice is (B)

This stimulus presents yet another experiment from which the author draws a causal conclusion. A diverse group of six-month-olds listened to various musical intervals, and showed more interest in the intervals which are prevalent in the musical systems of most world cultures. The author concludes that this is based on a biological disposition:

• Cause Effect
  
  Biology Interest is more prevalent musical intervals

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The question asks us to strengthen this causal argument, so we should probably look for the answer choice which rules out other possible explanations for the experiment’s results. Answer choice (B) does exactly that. If none of the babies in the experiment had any prior exposure to any music, then this rules out the possibility that the preferences reflected in the experiment were based on familiarity rather than genetic predisposition.

Answer choice (A) does not strengthen the causal claim. The fact that the apparent preference for such intervals continues beyond childhood provides no insight into the initial cause for that preference. Answer choice (C) seems to weaken the author’s claim; if the babies were exposed to a lot of music, most of which reflected the most prevent musical intervals, then this provides an alternative cause (that is, familiarity) for the babies’ preference. Answer choice (D) is perhaps the most clearly irrelevant, since the whole discussion here centers around musical preferences, not color. Answer choice (E), like answer choice (C) above, provides an alternative cause for the babies’ general preferences—repetition/familiarity.

[pacer]

For this question, I was not able to pick put the causality in the stimulus.

I get that the first part of the stimulus presents information and the final sentence makes the conclusion based on an experiment's findings reported earlier that humans probably have a biological predisposition to pay more attention to certain notes.

I imagined the researcher saying: "Because we found babies to may more attention to certain notes, we can conclude that humans have a biological predisposition to such notes".

They are making an assumption that connects biological predisposition and more attention.
and based on this, I ended up choosing A.

Can you mainly go over how to pick out causality from this type of stimulus? I did see this as a causal stimulus.

Should stimulus that describe a research study be dealt with differently?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi pacer,

The experiment described shows greater interest in certain types of musical intervals, and concludes that this must be the result of biological disposition. The conclusion explains a phenomenon, and therefore contains the cause for an observed effect:

Cause (biology) Effect (interest in perfect intervals)

To strengthen the argument, you need to rule out alternative explanations, i.e. causes, for the babies' preference. Answer choice (B) does that: if none of the babies had any prior exposure to music, this rules out the possibility that the preferences reflected in the experiment were based on familiarity with the music rather than the babies' genetic predisposition.

Answer choice (A) does not strengthen the causal claim, because the older the subject is, the less likely we are to differentiate between the two possible causes: biological predisposition vs. learned preference/behavior. Just because the adults prefer perfect octaves doesn't mean that the reason for their preferences is genetic in origin.

Hope this helps!

[lsatnoobie]

Can you explain why answer choice A is wrong? I chose it because the conclusion in the stimulus states “Thus, HUMANS probably have a biological disposition...” Answer choice A seems to support the argument that humans are biologically predisposed by informing us that children and adults, too, favored octaves. Can you help me point out the flaw in my thinking? I know the majority of the premise talks about babies but the conclusion says humans.

[Jennifer Janowsky]

Hi,

Nikki has a good explanation above:

Answer choice (A) does not strengthen the causal claim, because the older the subject is, the less likely we are to differentiate between the two possible causes: biological predisposition vs. learned preference/behavior. Just because the adults prefer perfect octaves doesn't mean that the reason for their preferences is genetic in origin.

Essentially, adults preferring octaves does not say anything about biological predisposition, since their exposure to music would deeply influence their preferences. Since the conclusion is that the love of octaves is biological, this is not helpful.

Hope this answers your question!

[T.B.Justin]

The author choosing the word "humans" in his conclusion seemed to point to him broadening the scope of this argument; I thought 'A' was the most relevant in that regard.

After a further look the "biological predisposition" is the significant language in the conclusion to focus on and points me back to my only other contender 'B'.

[Brook Miscoski]

Yes, Justin. The stimulus argues that biology, not culture, is the explanation. So answer choice (B), which helps to further eliminate some shared cultural element as the explanation, helps to strengthen the stimulus. (A) is meaningless because the experiment is about babies and because A does nothing to show that biology rather than culture is the explanation.

[cmorris32]

Hi pacer,

The experiment described shows greater interest in certain types of musical intervals, and concludes that this must be the result of biological disposition. The conclusion explains a phenomenon, and therefore contains the cause for an observed effect:

Cause (biology) Effect (interest in perfect intervals)

To strengthen the argument, you need to rule out alternative explanations, i.e. causes, for the babies' preference. Answer choice (B) does that: if none of the babies had any prior exposure to music, this rules out the possibility that the preferences reflected in the experiment were based on familiarity with the music rather than the babies' genetic predisposition.

Answer choice (A) does not strengthen the causal claim, because the older the subject is, the less likely we are to differentiate between the two possible causes: biological predisposition vs. learned preference/behavior. Just because the adults prefer perfect octaves doesn't mean that the reason for their preferences is genetic in origin.

Hope this helps!

Hi powerscore!

Just a question about the above answer to someone else's question... Are conclusions that explain a phenomenon generally causal, even if there are no causal indicators?

Thanks!
Caroline

[Adam Tyson]

I hesitate to say "always" about anything on the LSAT, Caroline, although this one would be close. An explanation for how something happened is almost always going to delve into what caused that thing, either explicitly or implicitly. I'm hard-pressed to think of an example of an explanation of a phenomenon that didn't have any causal element to it. I suppose, perhaps, an anti-causal explanation? For example, "the prisoner walked away and escaped because there was nobody there to stop him." That's not so much what caused the escape, but what allowed it to occur. So not always causal, but mostly.

[cd1010]

Could you clarify what role the following sentence plays in the stimulus: "These intervals are prevalent in the musical systems of most cultures around the world".

I think this sentence threw me off when I read the concluding sentence, because then I couldn't figure out how it was related to the conclusion -- if it was being presented as a premise, or if it was just meant to be a fact.