#14 - In a learning experiment a researcher ran rats through

[egarcia193]

Hi,
I got this answer choice correct and had B and E as contenders and eliminated A, C, and D but I had a hard time understanding this argument and kind of guessed when I chose B thinking it was an answer choice that was basically saying that we can't prove something 100% based on the data. could someone explain what the argument is driving at and how it goes astray, I Understand the first half but once they started talking about kinesthesia I started to get confused on how it related to the first half, could someone explain it in more detail how it relates to the argument?

[AthenaDalton]

Hi egarcia,

The experiment involved putting rats who lacked 1 of their 5 senses through a maze to see if they could solve it. So a rat who was blind (but could still smell, taste, hear etc) completed the maze, a rate who was deaf (but could still smell, taste, see, etc) completed the maze, and so on. All of the rats, including the rats who lacked the sense of bodily movement, were able to complete the maze. From this, the scientist concluded that a rat could complete the maze with only one sense.

The issue with this argument is that the experiment showed rats could complete the maze with any combination of 4 senses. And from this the scientist concluded the rat could complete the maze with just 1 sense. Obviously, such a conclusion is not supported by the experiment.

Answer choice (B) raises the possibility that kinethesia must interact with another sense (such as hearing, smell, or sight) in order to guide a rat through a maze.

[biskam]

I've seen this question twice now and both times the language in the stimulus totally trips me up, particularly this sentence: "only kinesthesia had not previously been shown to be irrelevant to maze-learning." What is this telling us relative to the other senses? That they don't know whether kinesthesia helps or not in completing the maze? What about the other senses? How can we know (I'm guess I'm asking where in the stimulus does it show the conclusion) then that the researcher thinks the mice were able to complete the maze with just one sense?

As you can tell I'm pretty confused, would appreciate the help to dissect this. Thanks!

[lsatprobs]

I don't think I understand what this passage is saying...

I understand that there was an experiment, and rats did the maze and some had hearing, vision, and smelling problems. Ok, cool, and the experiment showed that none of these had any effect on the maze learning. OK, good with that.

However, then they add in this kinesthesia stuff and I get lost.

So, they had previously tested this, and it was not irrelevant to the maze learning, OK.

But, I'm assuming that this was not in the same experiment. So, I understand how they can't conclude that kinesthesia is sufficient for maze learning. Because we don't know what that experiment is, and what the factors were. So, that ALONE doesn't mean that maze learning will be enhanced because I'm sure you can have kinesthesia and also other things (like being blind, etc).

Can someone give me some advice on how to read this question. I got it right, but that actual content confused me for some odd reason. Thanks!

[lathlee]

Hi. I got this question correctly. but I really want to know if what kind of reasoning error flaw is this for the future reference. plz? thx

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Lathlee,

This is similar to a False Dilemma. The speaker here assumes that the only sufficient conditions for maze-learning can be one of the five senses, and forgets that there may be other options - namely, that some combination of senses instead of a single sense may be required.

The difference between this flaw and False Dilemmas, is that there are four options presented instead of only two. Still the flaw here works in the same way as false dilemmas: the speaker rules out four options and concludes that the remaining fifth must be true, while overlooking other possible options. You could call this a false pentalemma if you would like.

[lathlee]

Hi. sorry, what is false pentalemma. is that a extension of false dilemma reasoning error?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Lathlee,

Sorry for the confusion. That term was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Since a dilemma necessarily refers to having only two options (the prefix di- comes from the Greek word for 'double' or 'two') and this stimulus presents us with five options, I was not quite sure what to label this. The specific variation of a false dilemma presented here does not occur frequently enough to have a commonly accepted name, so don't worry about naming it as much as understanding it.

[annabelle.swift]

I wanted to double-check my understanding of this sentence: "Of the senses other than sight, hearing, and smell, only kinesthesia had not previously been shown to be irrelevant to maze-learning."

Could I rephrase this sentence to "Considering the senses other than sight, hearing, and smell (essentially, taste and kinesthesia), only kinesthesia had previously been shown to be relevant to maze-learning"?

[Adam Tyson]

Not quite, annabelle.swift, but close. It's not that kinesthesia has been shown to be relevant, but that it hasn't been shown to be irrelevant, while taste has apparently been. It could just be that nobody has ever investigated kinesthesia!