LSAT 155 – Section 1 – Question 09

LSAT 155 - Section 1 - Question 09

November 2019

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:22

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
PT155 S1 Q09
+LR
+Exp
Sufficient assumption +SA
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
2%
156
B
61%
164
C
23%
153
D
9%
155
E
5%
155
147
156
165
 +Harder 147.037 +SubsectionMedium

Essayist: Practical intelligence is the ability to discover means to ends. This ability is a skill—something that does not develop on its own. Thus, if there were a being that was never deprived of anything but was always and immediately given what it wants, that being could never become intelligent in the practical sense.

Summary
The author concludes that if there was a being that was always and immediately given anything it wants, that being could never obtain practical intelligence. Why? Because practical intelligence, which is the ability to discover means to ends, never develops on its own.

Missing Connection
We know that the ability to discover means to ends (practical intelligence) never develops on its own. Does that prove that someone who’s immediately given anything they ever want can’t develop the ability to discover means to ends? No. Why couldn’t someone else teach them this skill? Or why couldn’t the person decide to train and develop the skill? To make the argument valid, want to establish that someone who’s given anything they want immediately will never develop the skill of discovering the means to ends (practical intelligence).

A
A being cannot acquire a skill without the help of others.
(A) leaves open the possibility that someone who’s given anything they want immediately could acquire practical intelligence through the help of others.
B
Skills are acquired only if they are needed.
Someone who is always and immediately given anything they want is someone who doesn’t need to develop the skill of discovering means to ends. After all, whatever end they have in mind will always and immediately be satisfied. (B) establishes, then, that this kind of person will not acquire the skill of practice intelligence, because they do not need the skill.
C
The best way to learn how to acquire something is to be deprived of it.
(C) leaves open the possibility that someone who’s always and immediately given anything they want can still develop practical intelligence. The best way to learn how to acquire something doesn’t preclude the possibility of many other ways to learn how to acquire something.
D
A being with practical intelligence would get what it wants entirely through the use of its practical intelligence.
(D) tells us something about someone who already has practical intelligence. This is irrelevant, because we’re trying to prove that someone will never develop practical intelligence.
E
If a being were always deprived of what it wanted, it could not acquire practical intelligence.
The argument concerns a being who is “never deprived of anything.” So (E)’s statement about a being who’s always deprived of what it wants doesn’t affect the argument.

This is an SA question.

The stimulus begins a premise that defines “practical intelligence” as “the ability to discover means to ends.” Next, another premise places “practical intelligence” as a member in the set of “skills” and “skills” do not develop on their own.

Now we get a conditional conclusion. If there’s a being that was never deprived of anything and was always and immediately given what it wanted, then that being could never possess “practical intelligence.”

Clearly, there’s a missing link. What is it?

This argument doesn’t translate neatly into conditional logic. But at a high level, you know the conclusion is arguing for this being not having practical intelligence. On the basis of what? On the basis of what this being is and on the basis of what practical intelligence is. The premises tell us that practical intelligence is a skill, and more specifically, it’s a skill to discover means to ends. So that’s an opening. And all we know about the being is that it’s never deprived of anything and gets whatever it wants immediately. These two ideas already connect together. Together, it means that this being is never in need of practical intelligence. Why not? Because think about what practical intelligence is. It’s the ability to discover means to ends. But this being always and immediately gets whatever it wants. Therefore, it’s never in need of discovering means to ends. Does that mean it will never possess the ability to discover means to ends? In other words, is it true that if it doesn’t need practical intelligence, then it won’t have practical intelligence?

Correct Answer Choice (B) says it’s true. It says that skills are acquired only if they are needed. Contrapositive: if skills are not needed, then they are not acquired. Kick the idea of “skills” up into the domain. We know practical intelligence is a skill and so this rule applies to practical intelligence. If it’s not needed, then it won’t be acquired. The premises trigger the sufficient condition. Therefore, we can draw the necessary condition as the conclusion.

Answer Choice (A) is a conditional constructed using “without.” Translated, (A) says that acquiring a skill requires the help of others. But the problem here is that the premises don’t trigger the failure of the necessary condition. The premises don’t amount to other beings not helping this being. In fact, if we take seriously the claim that this being gets whatever it wants, then as soon as it wants others to help it, others will help it.

Answer Choice (C) talks about the best way to acquire practical intelligence. But that implies there are other ways. So at best, this precludes the being in the argument from the best way of acquiring practical intelligence. That doesn’t preclude all ways.

Answer Choice (D) talks about a being that is already practically intelligent and how it gets what it wants. We don’t care. We’re trying to make an argument that this being cannot be a being that is practically intelligent. Telling us about beings that are already practically intelligent doesn’t help.

Answer Choice (E) talks about a being that is always deprived of what it wants. At this point, we can eliminate this answer. The premises fail this sufficient condition. Our being is never deprived of what it wants. Failing the sufficient condition renders this rule irrelevant.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 155 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply