Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S2 · Q5 Although consciousness seems to arise

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

Start practicing free

Although consciousness seems to arise from physical processes, physical theories can explain only why physical systems have certain physical structures and how these systems perform various physical functions.

Conclusion (Thus)

No strictly physical theory can explain consciousness.

Evidence

Physical theories can explain only why physical systems have certain physical structures and how these systems perform various physical functions.

Evaluate

We are trying to prove that "X can't explain consciousness". So we need a proving mechanism for that, a rule that's like .

Did the evidence provide any such rule?

Nope. So we know for sure that the correct answer will have that structure: [ ? ] → can't / doesn't explain consciousness

What were we told about physical theories? How come the author is thinking they can't explain consciousness?

We're told they only explain why physical systems have certain structures and how those systems perform functions.

Apparently the author thinks that explaining consciousness goes beyond explaining only that type of stuff.

Goal

Let's look for an answer like

if X only explains why physical then X can't systems have certain structures → explain + how systems perform functions consciousness

We could also use an answer that sounds like, .

5.

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Physical theories can explain only

    Bad Trigger Match

    This is providing a rule that would allow us to say that "X can't explain something". If it's not phys ? Physical theory phenomenon can't explain it We're trying to prove that physical theories can't explain consciousness, so this rule would output the right language. Does the trigger apply to 'consciousness'? Were we told that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon? No, actually the opposite. We were told that consciousness seems to arise from physical processes, meaning that it probably is a physical phenomenon. Since the trigger of this rule doesn't apply to 'consciousness', we can't use this rule to prove anything about 'consciousness'.

    11% picked this

  2. Correct

    An explanation of consciousness must

    Why this is right

    This defines what is required for an explanation of consciousness, so we would be able to use this to prove, "X doesn't meet a requirement. Thus, X does not explain consciousness." This rule looks like this: If it doesn't encompass then doesn't more than an explanation of ? explain physical structures + functions consciousness When it comes to physical theories, were we told whether they encompassed more than physical structures and functions? We were! They said that physical theories can explain only X, they encompass only X. They only explain physical systems and physical functions, so according to this rule, physical theories don't explain consciousness. Thus, we've proven our conclusion.

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

    74% picked this

  3. The physical structures and functions

    Unrelated to Goal

    Since this answer isn't providing a rule that outputs "can't explain X" or "doesn't explain X", it has no value to us. We won't be able to derive the conclusion "can't explain consciousness" if the correct answer doesn't provide us with a rule that outputs such language.

    9% picked this

  4. Consciousness arises from processes that

    Weakens

    This sounds more like physical theories can explain consciousness, which is the opposite of the conclusion.

    3% picked this

  5. An explanation of physical structures

    Bad Conclusion Match

    While this is providing a rule that talks about the requirements for explaining something (and so it can output language like "can't explain X"), this is only a rule about what's required for explaining physical structures and functions. We can say "If you're not formulated in strictly physical terms, then you can't explain physical structures and functions", but that's it. We wouldn't be able to use this rule and output, "Thus, you can't explain consciousness." (Not to mention, physical theories are presumably formulated in strictly physical terms, so it's not even like this rule would say something negative about physical theories)

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill
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