Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Medium

PT145 S3 P3 Q15 Explanation

Communication Systems

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsLocal PurposeScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Passage A One function of language is to influence others’ behavior by changing what they know, believe, or desire. For humans engaged in conversation, the perception of the most common vocalization stimulus.

While animal vocalizations may have evolved because they can potentially alter listeners’ behavior to the signaler’s benefit, such communication is—in contrast to human language—inadvertent, because most animals, with the possible exception of chimpanzees, cannot attribute mental states to others. The male Physalaemus frog calls because calling causes females to approach and other Many animal vocalizations whose production initially seems goal-directed are not as purposeful as they first appear.

Passage B Many scientists distinguish animal communication systems from human language on the grounds that the former are rigid responses to is spontaneous and creative.

In this connection, it is commonly stated that no animal can use its communication system to lie. Obviously, a lie requires intention to deceive: to judge whether a particular instance of animal communication is truly prevarication requires knowledge of the animal’s intentions. Language philosopher H. P. Grice explains that for an individual merely a conditioned reflex: animals may use communicative signs but lack conscious intention regarding their use.

But these arguments are circular: conscious intention is ruled out a priori and then its absence taken as evidence that animal communication is fundamentally different from human language. In fact, the narrowing of the perceived gap between animal communication and human language revealed by recent research with chimpanzees and other animals calls that animals respond mechanically to stimuli, whereas humans speak with conscious understanding and intent.

What this question is testing

Local Purpose

Your task

Identify why the author included the referenced detail at that point in the passage — its function, not its content.

Common trap

Answers that merely repeat or summarize the topic of the detail instead of describing the role it plays.

Winning move

Ask what job the detail does for the paragraph, then for the passage's broader point.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
15.

In discussing the philosopher Maritain, the author of passage B seeks

Answer choices

  1. Correct74% picked this

    describe an interpretation of animal communication that the author believes rests on

    Why this is right

    This reinforces the "bookend" after Maritain. The author says these arguments (referring to Maritain's view and those like him) are circular (a logical error).

    Skill tested: Local Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  2. Opposite5% picked this

    suggest by illustration that there is conscious intention underlying the communicative signs employed

    Maritain exemplies the view that "only humans have conscious intention", so he was not brought up to illustrate that other animals have conscious intention.

  3. Opposite Out of Scope: spontaneous / creative3% picked this

    present an argument in support of the view that animal communication systems are

    The passage isn't getting into whether honeybee behavior is spontaneous or creative. But if we hear those words as proxies for "flexible, humanlike intelligence", then this the opposite of what Maritain is there for. He's an example of the "only humans really think / these other animals just have instincts" crowd.

  4. Out of Scope9% picked this

    furnish specific evidence against the theory that most animal communication is merely

    Out of Scope: specific evidence Too Strong: most If we read this answer as saying that Maritain was evidence against the idea that most communication is reflex, that would be opposite. If we read this answer as describing what our author said in relation to Maritain, it's still off -- our author tries to argue against Maritain's (and others') idea that conscious intention is uniquely human. So our author thinks, "it's not JUST humans". But that doesn't mean the author thinks that "most" animal communication has conscious intention. Also, there is no specific evidence brought by our author. She just argues the unfair logic of Maritain and others.

  5. Opposite10% picked this

    point to a noted authority on animal communication whose views the author

    The author is bringing up Maritain to (almost disdainfully) disagree with him. She's not citing him as an opinion she respects.

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