LSAT 114 – Section 4 – Question 18

LSAT 114 - Section 4 - Question 18

October 2002

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:13

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
PT114 S4 Q18
+LR
Argument part +AP
Analogy +An
A
13%
155
B
83%
163
C
1%
153
D
2%
156
E
0%
155
134
144
155
 +Medium 144.851 +SubsectionEasier

Anders: The physical structure of the brain plays an important role in thinking. So researchers developing “thinking machines”—computers that can make decisions based on both common sense and factual knowledge—should closely model those machines on the structure of the brain.

Yang: Important does not mean essential. After all, no flying machine closely modeled on birds has worked; workable aircraft are structurally very different from birds. So thinking machines closely modeled on the brain are also likely to fail. In developing a workable thinking machine, researchers would therefore increase their chances of success if they focus on the brain’s function and simply ignore its physical structure.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Anders concludes that researchers developing thinking machines should model them on the brain’s structure: since the structure of the brain is important in its function, thinking machines should follow a similar physical model in order to achieve a similar function.
Yang concludes that those researchers would be more successful if they focus on the brain’s function and ignore its structure. As support, Yang uses an analogy: since all flying machines modeled on birds failed, thinking machines structurally modeled on the brain are also likely to fail.

Yang concludes..... this is in contrast to Anders’ view that......

Yang disagrees with Anders that... Rather, Yang concludes that....

Identify Argument Part
The statement in the question stem is a sub-conclusion. It gains support from the analogy about birds and airplanes, and it supports Yang’s main conclusion that researchers should focus on the brain’s function and ignore the its structure to develop a thinking machine.

A
the main conclusion of the argument
The main conclusion of Yang’s argument is that researchers should focus on the brain’s function and ignore its physical structure; the claim in the question stem supports this conclusion.
B
a subsidiary conclusion used in support of the main conclusion
The claim in the question stem is a subsidiary conclusion. It is supported from one part of the argument: the premise that no flying machine closely modeled on birds worked. The claim also provides support for Yang’s main conclusion, making it a subsidiary conclusion.
C
a principle of research invoked in support of the conclusion
The claim in the question stem is not used as a general principle of research; instead, it is a prediction based on the analogous case of airplanes and birds.
D
a particular example illustrating a general claim
Yang’s argument is not illustrating a general claim; the conclusion of Yang’s argument is specific to thinking machines. Because of this, the subsidiary conclusion referenced in the question stem can not be said to be “illustrating a general claim.”
E
background information providing a context for the argument
The statement in the question stem is not used as context. Instead, it is a sub-conclusion.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 114 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply