PT114.S4.Q18 > Analytics

Hide analysis

Anders: Support The physical structure of the brain plays an important role in thinking. ██ ███████████ ██████████ █████████ █████████████████████ ████ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ███ ███████ ██████████████████ ███████ █████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████

█████ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ██████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████████████ ████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ █ ████████ ████████ ████████ ███████████ █████ █████████ ████████ █████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██████████

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Anders argues that, because the physical structure of the brain plays an important role in thinking, researchers should model "thinking machines" on the physical structure of the brain.

Yang rejects this argument, using an analogy with flying machines. Yang points out that flying machines modeled on birds' structures have never worked, and aircraft that work have very different structures from birds. By analogy, Yang argues that thinking machines modeled on the brain's physical structure are likely to fail, and concludes that researchers would have more success focusing on the brain's function and ignoring its structure.

18.

The statement "thinking machines closely ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ██████ █████████

Question Type

Argument part

This statement is the conclusion Yang draws from the analogy with flying machines, as we can see from the "So" at the beginning of this statement. But this statement, in turn, supports Yang's main conclusion that researchers would likely have more success focusing on the brain's function and not its structure. This direction of support is clear both because of the "therefore" contained in the last sentence, and because it makes sense contextually, since Yang is responding directly to Anders's suggestion for how researchers should go about developing thinking machines. So the statement in the question stem is an intermediary conclusion of Yang's argument.

the main conclusion ██ ███ ████████

Incorrect. Yang's main conclusion is that researchers would increase their chances of success by focusing on the brain's function and not its structure.

13%

a subsidiary conclusion ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████

Correct. This is what we pre-phrased in our analysis.

83%

a principle of ████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████

Incorrect. This statement isn't a "principle of research."

a particular example ████████████ █ ███████ █████

Incorrect. This statement isn't a "particular example." It's a prediction based on an analogy.

background information providing █ ███████ ███ ███ ████████

Incorrect. This isn't contextual information. It's an intermediary conclusion derived from the preceding analogy.

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic

More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Free practice test All free LSAT resources

PrepTest 114 - Section 4 - Question 18

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action