Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S3 · Q18 The human brain and its associated

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

The human brain and its associated mental capacities evolved to assist self-preservation.

Conclusion (So)

An individual's aesthetic judgments must be evaluated in terms of how much they promote that individual's survival.

Intermediate Conclusion (Thus)

The capacity to make aesthetic judgments is an adaptation to past environments in which humans lived.

Evidence

The brain and its mental capacities evolved to assist self-preservation.

Evaluate

There two conclusions drawn, so technically the answer could deal with either reasoning move, but the first reasoning move from claim 1 to claim 2 seems pretty solid (and is already a less likely target, given that it's an intermediate conclusion).

It's essentially assuming that . That's pretty boilerplate natural selection thinking, so the answer probably won't focus there.

The move from Intermediate to Main Conclusion is based on two different claims about aesthetic judgments:

Since they "evolved to" assist self-preservation they assist self-preservation.

Goal

On a first pass, be picky about finding normative language in the answer that relates to our conclusion, which is about "how we should evaluate something".

It'll probably sound something like,

18.

Which one of the following is a principle that would, if valid, provide the strongest justification for the reasoning above?

  1. All human adaptations to past

    Too Strong

    This is a rule that would help us conclude whether something was / wasn't based on the human brain and its associated mental capacities. We want a rule that helps us conclude how we should evaluate something.

    11% picked this

  2. Human capacities that do not

    Bad Match

    This is a rule that would allow us to conclude that something "can't be evaluated". We want a rule that would allow us to conclude that "this is how we should evaluate" something.

    4% picked this

  3. Correct

    If something develops to serve

    Why this is right

    Aesthetic judgments evolved / developed to serve the function of assisting self-preservation / survival. So according to this rule, the standard by which we must evaluate aesthetic judgments is how well it serves the function of self-preservation / survival. That's a fantastic match for our conclusion.

    Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    82% picked this

  4. Judgments that depend on individual

    Bad Match

    This is a rule that would allow us to conclude that something "can't be evaluated as true or false". But that doesn't mean that we can conclude "we SHOULD evaluate it based on how it impacts survival value".

    1% picked this

  5. Anything that enhances the proliferation

    Bad Match

    This is a rule that would allow us to conclude that something "should be highly valued". We want a rule that would allow us to conclude that "we should evaluate this [something] based on how it contributes to survival value".

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free