A
It is unlikely that brain-scanning technology will ever enable researchers to understand how the brain enables us to think.
B
There is no way that researchers can know for certain that subjects whose brains are being scanned are accurately reporting what they are thinking.
C
Because subjects whose brains are being scanned may not accurately report what they are thinking, the results of brain-scanning research should be regarded with great skepticism.
D
Brain scans can provide information about the accuracy of the verbal reports of subjects whose brains are being scanned.
E
Information from brain scans can help researchers understand how the brain enables us to think only if the verbal reports of those whose brains are being scanned are accurate.
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the ornithologist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The ornithologist begins by stating how a particular bird species (we will call this bird "X") diet is believed to consist primarily of vegetation (plants). However, the ornithologist concludes that belief is wrong. In other words, The ornithologist argues that "X" birds' diets are mostly not plants. As evidence, he describes how he camouflaged himself and watched hundreds of "X" birds every morning for a month. During his morning observations, he estimates that over half of what "X" birds ate were insects and animal food resources (not plants). This line of reasoning is flawed because the ornithologist only observed birds during the morning. Let's say I hypothesized that the belief humans frequently drink coffee is wrong. To prove my theory, I hid in people's closets for many months and watched their bedtime routines. During my observations, I noticed very few people drank coffee. Hypothesis proven, right? No! The problem is that I only observed people at night when they were unlikely to drink coffee. The other problem is that I shouldn't hide in people's closets. An ideal experiment has a representative sample.
Similarly, the ornithologist has only observed what "X" birds eat in the morning. However, what "X" birds eat in the morning might be unrepresentative of their diet on the whole. Now that we have identified our flaw let's move to the answer choices.
Answer Choice (A) is wrong. The ornithologist says he camouflaged himself. You might argue that perhaps his camouflage was ineffective. However, our job LSAT flaw questions in the reasoning, not to question the truth of the premises. Even if he did camouflage himself well, his argument is still problematic (he was only watching "X" birds in the morning!).
Answer Choice (B) is wrong. The ornithologist does not need to describe exactly what kinds of food "X" birds ate. He needs to say that plants accounted for 50% or less of their diet. So if it was true that most of "X" birds' diets were insect and animal food sources, that would imply 50% or less of "X" birds' diet was plants.
Answer Choice (C) is wrong. The author does not adopt the widespread belief. The author rejects the widespread idea that "X" birds' diet is mostly plants.
Correct Answer Choice (D) is what we discussed. If it was confirmed that "X" birds have different feeding patterns throughout the day, the ornithologist made an error by taking an unrepresentative sample of the birds' diet.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. Mapping on the stimulus to (E), we would get: fails to consider the possibility that "X" birds diet has changed since the earlier belief that "X" birds mostly ate plants was formed. Even if it was true that the popular belief was formed when "X" birds used to mostly eat plants, what matters is what the birds eat now. If "X" birds mostly eat insects and animals, then the popular belief is wrong. Being right in the past doesn't make you any less wrong in the present.
Educator: Only those students who are genuinely curious about a topic can successfully learn about that topic. They find the satisfaction of their curiosity intrinsically gratifying, and appreciate the inherent rewards of the learning process itself. However, almost no child enters the classroom with sufficient curiosity to learn successfully all that the teacher must instill. A teacher’s job, therefore, _______.
Summary
For students to successfully learn about a topic, they must be genuinely curious about that topic. These students find satisfaction of curiosity gratifying. However, almost no child enters the classroom with sufficient curiosity to successfully learn all that must be taught.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
A teacher’s job, therefore, requires stimulating and satisfying a student’s curiosity.
A
requires for the fulfillment of its goals the stimulation as well as the satisfaction of curiosity
This answer is strongly supported. Curiosity is a necessary condition for students to successfully learn a topic.
B
necessitates the creative use of rewards that are not inherent in the learning process itself
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether the use of rewards is necessary for stimulating curiosity or successfully learning a topic.
C
is to focus primarily on those topics that do not initially interest the students
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not suggest what topics teachers should or should not focus on.
D
is facilitated by students’ taking responsibility for their own learning
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not suggest whether students have any responsibility for their own learning.
E
becomes easier if students realize that some learning is not necessarily enjoyable
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not suggest at what point a teacher’s job becomes easier.
A
It serves to bolster the argument’s main conclusion.
B
It identifies a view that is ultimately disputed by the argument.
C
It identifies a position supported by the initial premise in the argument.
D
It provides support for the initial premise in the argument.
E
It provides support for a counterargument to the initial premise.
The question stem reads: Each of the following arguments exhibits flawed reasoning similar to that in the argument above EXCEPT… This is a Parallel Flaw question.
The author states that each of the smallest particles in the universe has an “elegantly simple structure.” Since the universe is composed of these particles, the author concludes that the universe also has an “elegantly simple structure.” The argument makes a fallacy of composition (part to whole). Just because a part or all of the parts have a particular property, the property does not necessarily carry over to the whole. By a similar line of reasoning, we could conclude that because the parts of a car cannot move on their own, and a car is composed of those parts, the car itself must not be able to move.
Because this is an except question, the wrong answer choices will contain a fallacy of composition. The right answer choice could exhibit some other fallacy or be a valid argument.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. (A) matches the stimulus by saying that because the parts of a car have the property of being perfectly engineered, then the car (the parts put together) must also have the property of being perfectly engineered. The car's parts may be well-engineered, but the car could be designed and assembled in a terrible fashion. Eliminate (A).
Correct Answer Choice (B) does make an argument from part to whole. However, (B) is not a fallacious argument. If every part of the desk is made of metal, then it must be true the desk is made of metal. While the properties of the parts do not necessarily carry over to the whole, sometimes they do. You must use your judgment to determine whether a “part to whole” argument works or is fallacious. Because (B) makes a good argument, (B) is our right answer.
Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. (C) matches the stimulus by saying because bricks have the property of being rectangular, the wall of bricks (the bricks put together) must have the property of being rectangular. What if the wall is built in a circle? Eliminate (C).
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect. (D) matches the stimulus by saying that because each piece of wood has the property of being sturdy, then the desk (the wood put together) must also have the property of being sturdy. Perhaps the stool was poorly put together. Eliminate (D).
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. (E) matches our stimulus by saying that because each sentence of the novel has the property of being well constructed, the novel (all of the sentences put together) must also have the property of being well constructed. Eliminate (E).