Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S1 · Q20 Computer modeling of reasoning tasks

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

Computer modeling of reasoning tasks is far easier than computer modeling of other cognitive tasks, such as the processing of sense images.

Conclusion (So)

It appears that we understand the analytical capabilities of our minds much better than we understand our senses.

Evidence

Computers can defeat chess champions, but cannot see. Computer modeling of reasoning tasks is way easier than computer modeling of sense images.

Evaluate

The language we're trying to prove in the Conclusion is .

We weren't given a rule by which to judge whether we understand one thing better than another, so the correct answer will have to supply us with a rule for why we would understand one thing better than another.

The reference to "analytical capabilities" in the conclusion seems intended as a callback to "chess" and "reasoning tasks".

The reference to "our senses" seems intended as a callback to "seeing" and "processing of sense images".

Why would our author be thinking we understand that first threesome better than we do that second threesome?

There are two comparative advantages mentioned: - computer modeling of A is far easier than that of B - computers can beat humans at A but can't accomplish B.

Goal

So they've provided us two different launchpads in the Evidence, that can potentially get us to the landing zone in the Conclusion.

If .... Then ... computer modeling we understand of A is much easier A much better than computer than we modeling of B understand B or If .... Then ... computers can we understand beat humans at A A much better but computers than we can't even do B understand B

20.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?

  1. The degree of difficulty of

    Unrelated to Goal

    Since this answer has no language that would allow you to use this rule and judge which thing we understand better, it's of no use to us.

    7% picked this

  2. The better we understand a

    Weak Evidence/Conclusion Match

    This is tempting. It's definitely sounding related to our conclusion language. This rule would allow us to say "we understand our ability to perform task X better than we understand our ability to perform task Y". The conclusion was not about tasks as much as capabilities / capacities, so it's actually not a great match for the conclusion. Also, the evidence half of this answer is talking about how well we "understand a computer's ability to perform a task". That doesn't really match with our evidence, which never once mentions understanding. Our evidence was only saying "modeling X on a computer is much easier", not "we understand how computers are able to perform X better".

    24% picked this

  3. A computer’s defeat of a

    Unrelated to Goal

    Since this answer has no language that would allow you to use this rule and judge which thing we understand better, it's of no use to us.

    1% picked this

  4. Correct

    The less difficult it is

    Why this is right

    This is similar to (B), but it has a better match for our Evidence language and our Conclusion language. The argument was thinking Since computer modeling analytical tasks is far easier than computer modeling sensory tasks, we can conclude that we understand analytical processes better than sensory processes. This answer is saying, "The easier it is to construct computer models of X, the better we understand X", so this gives us a great bridge from the launching pad in the first sentence to the landing zone in the conclusion.

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

    65% picked this

  5. We should not underestimate the

    Unrelated to Goal

    Since this answer has no language that would allow you to use this rule and judge which thing we understand better, it's of no use to us.

    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