Subscription pricing
I understand why the correct answer choice is correct because if robots were the only things going out to space, then why do we need to know anything about human limits but I don't understand why B is incorrect. Isn't the stimulus making the assumption that astronauts share these human limitations? Am I reading this wrong?
0
6 comments
I struggled with this question too (twice!), and I don’t like the negation test on the answer choices because it didn’t seem to help clear any confusion.
The difference for me is that choice B points to “ordinary humans”. Why do we care about ordinary humans? That would be a nice thing to do, but it’s not necessary to make the argument airtight.
We care about humans as a whole, which includes astronauts. The argument doesn’t make a distinction between types of humans. We just need to know about humans.
Argument parts:
Premise - We need medical knowledge to test limits of human capacity for living in space craft for a long time for our future mission to Mars.
Conclusion - Essential to build a space station for astronauts to live for a long time.
The missing link between the premise and conclusion is that is we’re sending humans to Mars. Humans include astronauts, whether they are ordinary or not.
The subassumption is that astronauts are humans, which I suppose lumps into the general knowledge of things LSAT would expect you to know.
Hope that helps.
@ashleytien240 said:
@ashleytien240 said:
@ashleytien240 said:
Astronauts are stationed at the space station not ordinary humans. So the medical information gathered from the space station would be about astronauts.
So at best B is irrelevant
So understanding human limits=/= ordinary humans?
There is no gap between astronauts and knowing human limits? (last sentence)
I went out in with the implicit assumption that astronauts have to be fit to be astronauts so it didn't consider them on par with the average human
tbh why is it an assumption that astronauts will be the ones going to space? didn't it explicitly say the astronauts will be living in the space station?
@ashleytien240 said:
@ashleytien240 said:
Astronauts are stationed at the space station not ordinary humans. So the medical information gathered from the space station would be about astronauts.
So at best B is irrelevant
So understanding human limits=/= ordinary humans?
There is no gap between astronauts and knowing human limits? (last sentence)
I went out in with the implicit assumption that astronauts have to be fit to be astronauts so it didn't consider them on par with the average human
I knocked B out when applying the negation test. Negated, B says: the capacities of astronauts are NOT typical of those of ordinary human beings.
The stim says that the space station is essential so they can test the "limits of human capacities to live in space" - aka astronauts, not just humans generally. The capacities that humans have to survive in space is on a spectrum- from not being able to survive at all, to being able to survive. We would think/ hope that the capacities of astronauts would not be typical of the average human- they need to be greater to withstand the challenges they will face outside earth.
So when applying the negation to the stim, it doesn't wreck the argument. Negated B just says astronauts' ability to survive is atypical of that of ordinary human beings.
I initially chose B and then chose A on BR, this was my reasoning. Hope this makes sense!
@ashleytien240 said:
Astronauts are stationed at the space station not ordinary humans. So the medical information gathered from the space station would be about astronauts.
So at best B is irrelevant
So understanding human limits=/= ordinary humans?
There is no gap between astronauts and knowing human limits? (last sentence)
Astronauts are stationed at the space station not ordinary humans. So the medical information gathered from the space station would be about astronauts.
So at best B is irrelevant