LSAT 106 – Section 3 – Question 15

LSAT 106 - Section 3 - Question 15

June 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:10

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT106 S3 Q15	+LR	Weaken +Weak	A 2% 160 B 85% 168 C 2% 160 D 8% 163 E 4% 164	132 145 158	+Medium	148.198 +SubsectionMedium

Human beings have cognitive faculties that are superior to those of other animals, and once humans become aware of these, they cannot be made happy by anything that does not involve gratification of these faculties.

The stimulus does not provide an argument, just a pair of claims. First, humans have superior cognitive abilities compared to other animals. Second, once humans are aware of their superior cognitive faculties, they can only achieve happiness through activities that involve gratifying their cognitive faculties.

Notable Assumptions

The stimulus assumes that both of the claims presented are factually true. This means it assumes:
that no animals have superior cognitive faculties compared to humans; and also
that no humans who are aware of their superior cognition can be made happy through non-cognitively-gratifying activities.

Certain animals—dolphins and chimpanzees, for example—appear to be capable of rational communication.

This does not weaken the claims in the stimulus. First, we don’t actually know if these animals actually are capable of rational communication—they just seem to be. Second, even if they were capable, we still wouldn’t know if they had superior cognition to humans.

Many people familiar both with intellectual stimulation and with physical pleasures enjoy the latter more.

This weakens the claims in the stimulus. People familiar with intellectual stimulation can reasonably be said to be aware of their cognitive faculties. If many such people prefer physical (i.e. non-cognitive) pleasures, that undermines the stimulus’ second claim.

Someone who never experienced classical music as a child will usually prefer popular music as an adult.

This does not weaken the claims in the stimulus. First, we can’t assume that classical and pop music are relevant to distinguishing cognitive and non-cognitive sources of happiness. Second, we don’t know if this “someone” is aware of their cognition, and thus within the domain.

Many people who are serious athletes consider themselves to be happy.

This does not weaken the claims in the stimulus. Like (E), we have no idea if this provides an example of people who are aware of their cognition but still gain happiness from non-cognitive activities—we can’t assume either of those factors.

Many people who are serious athletes love gourmet food.

This does not weaken the claims in the stimulus. Like (D), both factors of the stimulus’ second claim are unclear. Are serious athletes aware of their cognition or not? Is gourmet food a non-cognitive source of happiness or not? We don’t know.

LSAT 106 – Section 3 – Question 15

LSAT 106 - Section 3 - Question 15

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel