PT4.S1.Q18 - The question whether intelligent life exists

Comments

• AudaciousRed Alum Member

  August 2019 2689 karma

  I think this is because C has strong language. It says that intelligent life CANNOT be defined. Maybe it can. Maybe there is a better definition that would work out there. The text never said it couldn't be defined, just that it can't be defined in a precise way, because that would leave out potential discoveries later on if we make the definition of "Intelligent life" too specific.

  D says that acting on the previous claim (that intelligent life should be defined in some specific way when searching for intelligent life in the universe), would be counter productive. And the passage does indicate that. It says that we can't look at the definition of life in a narrow way, because if we did, we could be writing off forms of intelligent life later which should be included. So, by defining intelligent life too specifically, it's self defeating when trying to figure out if there is intelligent life in the universe. Of course you wont find intelligent life if nothing qualifies, right? That's why D is the correct answer.
• JuandaSheep Alum Member

  August 2019 42 karma

  Based on the way you phrased your question, it seems like you considered the first sentence of the stimulus the main conclusion?

  I think the relationship between the two statements is a little different from "main conclusion and support." The author seems to be suggesting, that the question IS imprecise and SHOULD remain so, in order for intelligent lives to be found and recognized. Both of the statements support this unstated prescription. The first sentence sets up the "problem" of imprecision. The second sentence tells us that trying to solve the "problem," i.e. precisely define intelligent life, is counterproductive. Therefore? The "therefore" can be a separate LSAT question

  (C) Claiming that "intelligent life" cannot be adequately defined.
  Does the author claim that? The author seems to be saying that a more precise definition is undesirable, because it might prevent us from finding and recognizing intelligent lives elsewhere in the universe. The author doesn't directly comment on whether "intelligent life" CAN be defined. He/she is only talking about the consequences of holding on to a precise (narrow) definition.

  (D) Arguing that the claim, if acted on, would be counterproductive.
  The author does say acting on the claim that "we should define intelligent life more precisely in order to find them in the universe" would be counterproductive. It seems to be the gist of the second sentence.

  I actually chose C initially, lol. Thanks for bring up this cool question.