Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S1 · Q10 Anthropologist: In an experiment

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

Anthropologist: In an experiment, two groups of undergraduates were taught how to create one of the types of stone tools that the Neanderthals made in prehistoric times.

Conclusion (this shows that)

Even if Neanderthals didn't have language, they could just as well have created their sophisticated tools.

Evidence

In an experiment, one group of undergrads was taught how to create a Neanderthal tool using both demonstrations and elaborate verbal explanations. The other group was taught how to use the tool by silent example alone.

The two groups didn't show any difference in terms of how fast or how well they learned how to use the tool.

Evaluate

This is an Anti-Causal conclusion, claiming that possessing language would not have assisted Neanderthals in terms of the sophisticated tools they created.

The evidence is seeming to show that language didn't make a difference when it came to learning how to use one of the tools Neanderthals used.

The author seems to assume a missing Link like, .

We can prime our brain for objections by thinking,

Given that ... the group that learned by silent example learned just as quickly and just as well as the group that learned by demonstrations and verbal explanations,

How can we argue that ... Neanderthals could not have created their sophisticated tools just as well if they had no language?

Were the two groups in the experiment fair to compare, or was the "silent example" group comprised of people who are especially good at learning how to use a tool without verbal explanations?

Is it possible that you can learn how to use a tool without language being necessary, but creating a sophisticated tool would benefit from language?

Goal

Look for a way to argue that even though this study is true, Neanderthals still would have needed language to create their sophisticated tools the way they did.

10.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the anthropologist's argument?

Apart from the sophistication of
No Impact
The author was never claiming that Neanderthals didn't have language. So we can't weaken this argument by saying, "Hey, Neanderthals had language!" The author was just claiming, in a hypothetical world where Neanderthals didn't have language, that they still could have created their sophisticated tools just as easily.
6% picked this
The students who were taught
Strengthens, if anything
This answer gives another advantage to the group that had language. They were not only taught using language but they were also free to discuss what they were learning using language. Meanwhile, the other group was taught without language and wasn't allowed to use language to discuss the tools with their fellow group members, and yet they still acquired skills in using the tool just as fast and just as well as the first group. This would only help the author to argue even further than language is not providing benefit to the group that's using it.
3% picked this
Correct
The tools that the undergraduates
Why this is right
This de-values the relevance of the study as a way of assessing whether someone can learn a sophisticated Neanderthal tool without using language. The conclusion is about whether language was needed / helpful when it came to creating sophisticated Neanderthal tools. If the tools in the study were much simpler and easier and most Neanderthal tools, then the study wasn't actually testing any of the sophisticated tools that Neanderthals made. Thus, the fact that in the study undergrads could learn these super simple tools without the benefit of language becomes much weaker evidence that they could have learned a sophisticated Neanderthal tool without the benefit of language. I could probably teach you how to use a simple tool like a hammer without language, but it would be much harder to teach you how to use a sophisticated tool like a sewing machine without language.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
82% picked this
The instructor who taught the
Strengthens
This answer is similar to (B), in its effect. The author is looking at the fact that both groups learned tool usage equally well, regardless of whether language was involved, and concluding "it must be because language isn't needed to learn these tools". An alternate explanation for why the two groups ended up having similar success could have been the opposite of (B) (yes, the teacher couldn't talk, but the students still talked to each other) or it could be the opposite of this answer (the reason the silent group did as well as the talking group is because the silent group had a much better teacher than the talking group had). But this actually rules out that explanation, so it strengthens. Like (B), it's saying that the silent group had yet another obstacle (teacher didn't talk / students couldn't talk amongst themselves / teacher was worse). And yet if the students still learned the tool skills just as well, that helps the author argue that language is not important to learning.
5% picked this
The tools created by Neanderthals
No Impact
This answer compares the sophistication of Neanderthal tools to that of modern humans living at the same time. Old humans who were contemporaneous with the Neanderthals have nothing to do with our conversation. The only way to make them relevant would be an answer like, "The tools created by anatomically modern humans who lived at the same time as the Neanderthals were much less sophisticated than those made by the Neanderthals and those humans could not have created such tools if they had had no language".
4% 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