Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S3 · Q13 Science cannot adequately explain

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

Science cannot adequately explain emotional phenomena such as feeling frustrated, falling in love, or being moved by a painting.

Conclusion

Human emotions must not be physical phenomena.

Evidence (since)

Human emotions cannot be explained by physics, chemistry, or neurophysiology. Science can't adequately explain emotional phenomena such as feeling frustrated, falling in love, or being moved by a painting.

Evaluate

Our goal is to prove that X is not a physical phenomena. Has the argument provided any proving mechanism, like

No. So that means the correct answer must be some sort of rule that can output the language or idea of "not a physical phenomenon".

We're trying to prove this about human emotions, so what do we know about human emotions? - science can't adequately explain some of them (3 different examples listed) - they can't be explained by physics, chemistry, or neurophysiology

Goal

We want an answer that takes something we know to be true about human emotions and says that this proves that human emotions are not physical phenomena.

The most predictable answer would sound like,

If X can't be explained by → X is not a phys phys, chem, or neurophysio phenomenon

13.

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

  1. Whatever is not a physical

    Illegal Reversal

    The word whatever is a sufficient indicator, because it refers to a universal, a categorical statement. Whatever, whenever, whoever, wherever, etc. would all be sufficient indicators. So this answer says: If not a physical → can't be explained phenomena by science We'd love to have the reversal of that, because that could be a correct answer. But this is nothing. Any time an answer puts the Conclusion into the trigger, it's wrong. The conclusion always has to match the right side, the Outcome, of the conditional.

    17% picked this

  2. Nothing that can be felt

    Unrelated to Goal

    This isn't providing any proving mechanism with the words (or idea) "not physical phenomena", so it's functionally hopeless. We will only be able to derive that something is not a physical phenomena if we find an answer that defines some necessary trait of physical phenomena.

    1% picked this

  3. Physics, chemistry, and neurophysiology have

    Unrelated to Goal

    This isn't providing any proving mechanism with the words (or idea) "not physical phenomena", so it's functionally hopeless. We will only be able to derive that something is not a physical phenomena if we find an answer that defines some necessary trait of physical phenomena.

    1% picked this

  4. Whatever is not a physical

    If-Conclusion

    The word whatever is a sufficient indicator, because it refers to a universal, a categorical statement. Whatever, whenever, whoever, wherever, etc. would all be sufficient indicators. So this answer says: If not a physical → then an emotional phenomena phenomena We'd love to have the reversal of that, because that could be a correct answer. But this is nothing. Any time an answer puts the Conclusion into the trigger, it's wrong. The conclusion always has to match the right side, the Outcome, of the conditional.

    5% picked this

  5. Correct

    Every physical phenomenon can be

    Why this is right

    Like most correct answers on Sufficient Assumption, we have to contrapose it to understand why it works. As stated, the universal word every would mean the rule looks like this: Physical → can be explained by phys, phenomenon chem, or neurophysiology The contrapositive perfectly matches the move from the premise (Since) to the conclusion. cannot be explained by phys, → not physical chem, or neurophysiology phenomenon We know that human emotions can't be explained by Phys / Chem / Neuro, and so according to this rule, human emotions are not physical phenomena.

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

    76% 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