PT15.S2.Q17 - Most people believe that yawning

Henry An

Hi,

I understand that answer choice D is correct, but I have been struggling for quite a bit on eliminating answer choice B. Can anyone explain why this is incorrect?

When I was doing this question, I noticed two errors in reasoning, notably: 1) concluding a "must" causation from what people believed, and 2) that evidence of "historians" were being used to lead to a conclusion of a matter of natural science (or physiology).

Answer choice B seems pretty much right on the spot with the second. B reads: it cites the evidence of historians of popular culture (that people had a widespread belief on yawning was common in many parts of the world in the past) in direct support of a claim (that someone else yawning must be the most irresistible cause) that lies outside their area of expertise.
I took it to be true that discerning the physiological causation mechanisms of yawning is indeed outside the area of history. What may have gone wrong? Thanks!

hon132

Well, the argument only mentions that according to them, the belief exist among many groups and that is completely within their field of examining culture (cultural beliefs in particular). Note that it's the speaker, not the historians, whose connecting that belief to be the "most irresistible cause" of yawning.

At most, the historians are the source of the supporting premise but they don't actually have any input in the conclusion. Hell, if you take out "if we are to believe historians of popular culture.", the argument stays the same, basically saying because the belief is so widespread, it must be the main cause. There isn't any actual physiological support or causation given and B is right only if the historians offered some biological causation to the occurrence like you said.

Henry An

@hon132 Right. It is the author, and not the historians, that is linking the evidence of the historians to the conclusion, which is why I have an issue with B. The author is linking two premises (1. what most people believe now, and 2. the historian's evidence, which is that this belief was common place in the past) and together with these he supports his conclusion that there is a definite causation.

I think the "claim" in answer choice B that I am understanding, and what you are understanding is different. I linked this claim to the author's overall conclusion, while I think you are interpreting it as the historian's conclusion. As you pointed out, if this "claim" is indeed the historian's, and as such, the answer choice stated "it cites the evidence of the historians in direct support that "it had been common place in the past" that is outside their expertise," then I would agree with you that it is indeed within their expertise. But it can clearly also be referred to the claim of the author's, which I am having difficulty trying to find how analyzing a physiological phenomenon can fall within the expertise of historians of pop culture. Any thoughts?

hon132

No, I'm not saying anything is the historians'. What I meant in my second paragraph is that adding that they said it is extra information. The information could come have just as easily come from a survey or who said it could not be mentioned at all. It's a phenomenon that the historians observed in culture but they themselves offer no explanation as to why, much less why it is the most irresistible cause. The speaker could've easily mentioned the phenomenon on its own to make the same faulty argument.

To me, there's no real evidence for the conclusion here, only an observation that the speaker chose to believe is enough to substantiate the speaker's conclusion. The fact that it came from historians or biologists or whoever doesn't actually matter, it's merely an observation of that belief but there's no actual connection from any field to the conclusion that seeing someone yawn is the most common cause of yawning.

Henry An

@hon132 Thank you for your input! I've been trying to understand more with the addition of the explanation you have provided to me, but it would be great if you can give me some more feedback!

To your first comment, I don't quite understand why being extra information pertains to this issue? The matter of fact is that the author described the evidence that the belief was commonplace as the historians belief, and "the evidence of historians" stated in answer choice B is just referential phrasing to this part of the stimulus. Whether this is extra information or not, that doesn't deny the fact that it was cited as evidence to support another claim.

@hon132 said:
It's a phenomenon that the historians observed in culture but they themselves offer no explanation as to why, much less why it is the most irresistible cause.

Also, why would "the historians explanation on why it is the most irresistible cause" pertain here? I cannot see why this would be the issue. The problem is that it was the AUTHOR who was using the historians evidence (that the belief was commonplace) to reach HIS own conclusion that it is the most irresistible cause, and in this procedure, the author commits an error.

Now back to that error, I would also like to hear more in detail why this has nothing to do with expertise. The author in his reasoning brings two premises (which do fall within his area of expertise) to reach a conclusion that is not. For instance, I highly doubt that people would find credible a historian of popular culture claiming that drinking must be the most probable cause of high blood pressure, no?

Thanks in advance!

hon132

It's extra information because it's only there to name the source of the support used, that's all. There's nothing in that paragraph that remarks on what the historians believe is causation. B is wrong because it makes their expertise an issue; why does it matter when they are simply a point of reference for the observation? The historians themselves don't make an argument to connect Support to Conclusion, only the speaker is. What the historians think of that relationship is unknown and more importantly, irrelevant.
The expertise is only for that support but nothing that would relates to the conclusion because the historians aren't making that leap, the speaker is. If the historians notices that people across all cultures independently believe in some way that drinking cause High BP, it's the same premise and still wouldn't matter because the historians themselves are not implying causation, they have an observation that the speaker using to prove his point. The historians aren't saying anything other than X exists, the speaker is saying X exists so therefore Y. That's why B is wrong, because the historians only state X and never once make the connection to Y.

Henry An

@hon132 Saying that it is extra information that is not important just because "it is only there to name the source used," in my opinion, is not a valid approach for these flawed method of reasoning questions, as the LSAT often questions test takers on the source of the information used on whether or not it was correctly applied.

And like I said before, I know that the historians themselves did not use the information to deduce any mechanism of causation whatsoever. I understand that it is the AUTHOR that is using what the historians have uncovered on what people believed in the past to support HIS conclusion that there must be a causation mechanism for the phenomenon.

I do not quite understand on your repeated point in saying that the "historians are not implying causation," or that "the historians never make a connection" but that the author is the one using it to further his point. Like I have already stated before, I definitely concede and agree to this point. No explanation by the historians has been provided nor is such an explanation relevant here. But I find that this matter has nothing to do with answer choice B.

What answer choice B states, in my opinion, is that the author is citing the historians evidence in direct support of the AUTHOR's claim of causation which lies outside of the historian's area of expertise. In other words, the author is using evidence from a certain area of study to further a claim on a totally different area of study. The former being history, and the latter more related to physiology. I find it hard that this answer choice is descriptively inaccurate.

Somehow I am feeling that we are interpreting the answer choice differently.

Also on a side-note, consider the correct answer D, which states: it uses opinion to support a matter of fact. This kind of gets to the gist of how I am interpreting the stimulus, and I find that answer choice D has huge overlaps with answer choice B. Most often than not, the field of history is interpreting what has been written; a big part of history is in what view the historian takes and on how he or she interprets that history (consider the perspective of E.H. Carr).

Back to the stimulus, it reads "if we are to believe what the historians say, this belief of yawning has been common place in the past." However, the AUTHOR here is using such methodology of historians (of interpretation of past history) to support a matter of fact, in this case, a matter of natural physiological science. I do concede that this understanding of history is going overboard. I want to note that I am just adding some context in the hopes that we can be on the same page on how I am interpreting answer choice B.

I do understand that D is the more correct answer, but I cannot seem to see why B is descriptively inaccurate.