Reading Comprehension

PT145 · S3 · P3 · Q16 Communication Systems

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension 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

Passage A One function of language is to influence others’ behavior by changing what they know, believe, or desire.

Topic

The differences and similarities between animal communication and human language, especially focusing on mental states, intention, and the possibility of purposeful communication.

Framework

Present Debate (particularly for Passage B); Highlight Noteworthy (for Passage A, which is more informative/comparative)

Main Point

**Passage A:** Animal vocalizations, unlike human language, generally lack intentional communication based on attributing mental states to others—even when they seem purposeful, they are likely automatic responses, not truly purposeful acts based on others' knowledge or needs. **Passage B:** The usual claim that animal communication differs fundamentally from human language due to a lack of conscious intention might be circular and oversimplified; recent research suggests the gap may not be as large or clear-cut as previously thought. - Most Valuable Sentence Passage A: Last line of the first paragraph: - Most Valuable Sentence Passage B: End of last paragraph:

P1: Passage A - Function of Language & Comparison to Animal Vocalizations

The author begins by reminding us that a key function of language is to get others to change what they think, know, or want. For humans, reading other people's minds (in a sense) and responding to perceived needs is a big part of conversation.

P2: Passage A - Differences Between Human and Animal Communication

The passage argues that animal vocalizations, although sometimes evolved to benefit the signaling animal, are unconscious and not guided by an understanding of other animals' mental states. Unlike people, animals (except perhaps chimps) don't seem to communicate based on what they think another animal knows or needs; experimental evidence from frogs, macaques, and chimps shows animal calls are not tailored to inform ignorant individuals.

P1: Passage B - The Conventional Distinction

The passage starts by highlighting a traditional scientific view: animal communication is rigid and reflexive, while human language is flexible and creative.

16.

The author of passage B would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements regarding researchers who subscribe to the position articulated in passage A?

  1. They fail to recognize that

    Wrong Objection

    Psg B wants to say that Psg A fails to recognize that non-human animals perhaps do communicate with some idea of their listeners' mental states.

    16% picked this

  2. Most of them lack the

    Out of Scope: credentials

    The author is never talking about people not having the expertise to assess experimental evidence. Psg B is saying that the assumptions that go into interpreting are faulty, but that isn't connected to a lack of credentials.

    2% picked this

  3. They ignore well-known evidence that

    Contradicted: well-known evidence animals lie

    In psg B it's acknowledged that many thinkers like Psg A would argue that no (non-human) animal can use its communication system to lie. Psg B never directly contradicts that, and it certainly doesn't suggest there's any well-known evidence to the contrary.

    5% picked this

  4. Correct

    They make assumptions about matters

    Why this is right

    This captures the negative vibe. We can support "they make assumptions" from the line that "these arguments are circular: conscious intention is ruled out a priori". "a priori" is a Latin term (I guess) that means, roughly, prior to even entering this conversation / examining this data. It comes from the old Nature vs. Nurture debate. How much of our minds is programmed by innate things (a priori) and how much is acquired through experience (a posteriori). So that first sentence of B's last paragraph is saying, "They begin with an assumption that animals don't have conscious intention and then conclude from that absence that animal communication is very different from human communication". The "should be determined empirically" is somewhat just the logical opposite of a priori, but it is also reinforced by the fact that B brings up what recent research has told us. In short, B is like, "Shut up psg A. You're just assuming animals don't have intention, but check the research instead of your ego-reinforcing assumptions. The empirical research suggests there's not this huge gap in communcation."

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

    70% picked this

  5. They falsely believe that all

    Too Strong: all

    Psg B never accused thinkers like Psg A of believing that all communication systems can be explained in evolutionary benefits. Also, psg B would probably agree with this (assuming that they're both scientists who believe in the theory of evolution), so she wouldn't say that psg A falsely believes that communication can be explained via natural selection.

    8% 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