LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 15veries
  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: Sep 25, 2016
|
#30569
Hi,

I was not sure between D and E...
Actually at first I thought they are saying the same thing.
But maybe D is discussing the "attribute mental states to others" and E is about "nonhuman primates do not produce vocalizations in response to perception of another's need for information"?
So one is like...they do something without knowing what others will be affected by the behavior (but then why do they do the behavior? JUst response to stimuli?) and the other is just responding to stimuli? (but then I thought this is the same as the first one...)
What's the difference?
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 3883
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#31309
Hey 15v, thanks for asking. Maritain's says that bees dance solely by conditional reflex, without any conscious understanding of what they are "saying". That's what we want to support with evidence from passage A.

Answer E tells us only that macaques communicate, but it adds nothing to support Maritain's claim that such communication is merely reflex and lacks intention. That statement, by itself, could just as easily support that there IS intention, right?

Answer D, though, at least makes a negative connection for us. Negative evidence (or a lack of evidence) really proves nothing, but this answer is still the best of the bunch because it at least addresses the concept of "no intention" that Maritain claims.

Since D at least addresses that issue, and E ignores it, D is the better answer of the two.

Keep at it! You're asking good questions!
 PianolessPianist
  • Posts: 27
  • Joined: Aug 25, 2018
|
#57759
Adam Tyson wrote:Hey 15v, thanks for asking. Maritain's says that bees dance solely by conditional reflex, without any conscious understanding of what they are "saying". That's what we want to support with evidence from passage A.

Answer E tells us only that macaques communicate, but it adds nothing to support Maritain's claim that such communication is merely reflex and lacks intention. That statement, by itself, could just as easily support that there IS intention, right?

Answer D, though, at least makes a negative connection for us. Negative evidence (or a lack of evidence) really proves nothing, but this answer is still the best of the bunch because it at least addresses the concept of "no intention" that Maritain claims.

Since D at least addresses that issue, and E ignores it, D is the better answer of the two.

Keep at it! You're asking good questions!
Hey, thanks for the explanation. However, I disagree that "Answer E tells us only that macaques communicate, but it adds nothing to support Maritain's claim that such communication is merely reflex and lacks intention."

Answer E, as I understand it, refers to the evidence provided in passage A, which states that macaques were not more likely to make cooing/alarm sounds. This is used in Passage A to demonstrate that macaques do not have intention to communicate, which would therefore also support Maritain's position.

The frogs, however, are much weaker evidence since there is no actual demonstration - it's simply saying "we don't know that they do have intention," whereas the macaques argument tells us "since macaques behave no differently regardless of who is aware/around, we can deduce that they don't have any particular intention when calling"

Can anyone provide some further clarification? thanks!
 James Finch
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 944
  • Joined: Sep 06, 2017
|
#57933
Hi Pianist,

(D) here does give some (admittedly weak) evidence that the frogs may not call out intentionally--we may never know definitively, as it's very difficult if not impossible to prove nonexistence of a thing, but having no evidence means we certainly can't conclude intentionality. (E) does refer to the same evidence as is stated in Passage A (a good clue that this isn't the correct answer choice, as a question like this will generally bring in outside information), but with one crucial difference: it doesn't mention the lack of evidence for intentionality that Passage A does, meaning that it refers only to the fact that the macaques do these things, not why they do them (which is the important part). So (E) is missing a crucial element that (D) has: explicit lack of evidence of intentionality.

Hope this clears things up!
 flexbubbleboi
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Apr 22, 2021
|
#87406
I'm still having trouble with this question because it seems like, in the case of the frogs, Passage A does attribute an intention. 11-15 says that the frogs call *because* it causes females to approach and males to retreat. It says that the frog doesn't have a theory of mind with regard to the other frogs, but that he's doing so to achieve a given effect.

When it comes to the macaques, however, Passage A just says they make these sounds, and doesn't give any causal reason. So D seems like a much better match to Maritain's position than E does to me. Any advice?
 Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 939
  • Joined: Dec 06, 2013
|
#88252
flex,

But that intention is precisely unconscious, as you point out. So Maritain believes animals have no conscious intention behind communication. Lines 11-17 show that frogs lack a conscious mental attitude when engaging in communication. While perhaps we could call that "intention", it's exactly unconscious, so Maritain is right - the conjunction of "conscious" and "intention" is not found in the case of the frogs.

Robert Carroll
 flexbubbleboi
  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: Apr 22, 2021
|
#89123
Thank you -- I see I was getting up on what "conscious" exactly means, and missing the fact that the assertion in E doesn't itself provide support for Maritain's view, while the assertion in D could! Not seeing the forest for the trees...

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.