Domestication of animals

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: guaranteeing phenomenon11% picked this

   conflates being necessary for the development of a phenomenon with guaranteeing the development

   This answer alludes to the #1 famous flaw Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which the author presents a conditional relationship as a premise, and then the author ultimately reaches her conclusion by using that relationship in some backwards or inverted fashion. Do we have a conditional premise? Is there something identified as "necessary for the development of a phenomenon?" Sure, a sophisticated means of communication is required for cooperative activities ... so, I guess we could say it's required for the development of the phenomenon of 'cooperative activities'? Hmm. That feels too awkward to be correct. But that is our only option. The only necessary thing discussed in the argument is that sophisticated communication is necessary for cooperative activities. This answer is referring to "development of a phenomenon", so it's a more natural fit for matching up with the phenomenon of language, since the conclusion alludes to the development of language. But was there any trait we said was necessary for the development of language? Nope. So either way we slice it, we can't get off the ground with trying to match up the abstract wording from the answer with the specifics of the argument.

   11%
2. B

   Too Strong: every0% picked this

   takes for granted that every phenomenon has a

   Any time the answer on Flaw begins takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, the answer is claiming that the author needed to assume the idea that follows. If this were a Necessary Assumption question, would we say this author just committed to the idea that "every phenomenon has a unique cause"? Definitely not. That is way too extreme a claim for anyone to believe. Sometimes multiple phenomena have the same cause: the phenomena of Leon blushing and David smiling were both caused by Emilia walking out of the coffee shop and blowing a kiss in their direction. Our author doesn't have any problem with that type of situation. She doesn't need to assume that sort of thing never happens.

   0%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   infers that the development of one phenomenon caused the development of another merely because the two phenomena developed

   Any time a Flaw answer choice describes a 2-part reasoning move, such as ... confuses X with Y infers Y on the basis of X takes for granted that Y because X concludes, from the claim that X, that Y ... we check to see whether the evidence part (X) matches the evidence, and whether the conclusion part (Y) matches the author's conclusion, or an assumption she made en route to the conclusion. Here, we're asking ourselves, "Did the author conclude that the development of one phenomenon caused the development of another?" Kind of, but it's a stretch. We could say that the author is concluding that the desire to domesticate animals caused the development of language. Okay, does the evidence say that these two phenomena (domesticating animals + language) developed around the same time? No, it does not. We never hear that domestication of animals and language developed around the same time. This answer is teasing the famous Causal flaw, in which authors commonly assume that just because two things coincide, that one causes the other. Our objection here was more like, "Just because language fulfilled a need that X had doesn't prove that language developed primarily because of X".

   2%
4. D

   Not Circular1% picked this

   draws a conclusion that merely restates a claim presented in support

   This answer describes the famous Circular Reasoning flaw, which is almost never a correct answer. Circular arguments are weird; the evidence restates the conclusion or assumes the truth of the conclusion. The conclusion here is that "language developed primarily to facilitate animal domestication". Is there a premise that says or assumes "language developed primarily to facilitate animal domestication"? Nope. Language and animal domestication never even appear in the same sentence together, within the premises.

   1%
5. E

   Correct86% picked this

   assumes that if something serves a purpose it must have developed in order to

   Why this is right

   This answer is describing an assumption the author supposedly made, and the assumption is in conditional form, so the best way to analyze it is to ask ourselves whether the author 'made this move': if X serves ? X must have developed a purpose in order to serve that purpose We know that "language served the purpose of facilitating animal domestication", because animal domestication, as a cooperative activity, required a sophisticated means of communication, and "language provides such a means". Does the author move from that idea to the idea that "language must have developed in order to serve the purpose of facilitating animal domestication"? Yes, mostly. I mean, it's incredibly sloppy of LSAC to use softer wording in the conclusion (it is likely that language developed primarily to facilitate X) and then ask us to pick an answer that accuses the author of thinking that language must have developed to facilitate X. Nowadays, we see correct answers that are just sloppy like this. LSAT on more modern tests plays a little bit fast and loose with "necessary" assumption language. If it's fitting the gist and there isn't a better answer, then we need to sort of 'play along'.

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

   86%