LSAT 127 – Section 1 – Question 14

LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 14

December 2003

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

Ask a tutor

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
PT127 S1 Q14
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
2%
161
B
7%
158
C
4%
158
D
4%
155
E
83%
164
129
142
155
 +Medium 147.168 +SubsectionMedium

Over 90 percent of the human brain currently serves no purpose, as is evident from the fact that many people with significant brain damage show no discernible adverse effects. So once humans begin to tap into this tremendous source of creativity and innovation, many problems that today seem insurmountable will be within our ability to solve.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that, when humans begin to tap into the tremendous source of creativity and innovation, that many problems that seem insurmountable today will be within our ability to solve. To support this, the author notes that over 90% of the brain remains unused (a sub-conclusion that is supported by the observation that many people with significant brain damage experience no noticeable negative effects).

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the large portion of the brain that currently serves no purpose could be a source of creativity and innovation. From the information given, we have no reason to believe that these parts of the brain are a potential source of creativity and innovation––they could, for example, be purely structural with no potential to impact one’s creativity.

A
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the effects of brain damage are always easily detectable.
The argument does not make this assumption––there is no indication that brain damage is ever (or always) “easily” detectable.
B
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the only reason that any problem remains unsolved is a lack of creativity and innovation.
A lack of creativity and innovation is presumed to be a reason that some problems haven’t been solved, but the argument does not presume that a lack of creativity and innovation is the only reason for any unsolved problem.
C
The argument infers that certain parts of the brain do nothing merely on the basis of the assertion that we do not know what they do.
The argument does not make this inference merely based on the fact that we don’t know what these parts of the brain do. Instead, the inference is based on the observation that significant brain damage does not have discernible adverse effects in many people.
D
The argument infers that problems will be solved merely on the basis of the claim that they will be within our ability to solve.
The argument does not make this inference. The argument does not claim that these problems will be solved; the argument only says that the problems will be in our ability to solve.
E
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that the currently unused parts of the brain are a potential source of tremendous creativity and innovation.
The author says that 90% of the human brain is unused, then in the conclusion jumps to the claim about “this tremendous source of creativity and innovation.” We have no reason to believe that the unused parts of the brain are a potential source of creativity and innovation.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 127 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply