Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S2 · Q21 A chimp who displays feelings of affection

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

A chimp who displays feelings of affection toward the other members of its social group is more likely to be defended by these group members from raiders outside of the group—even at the risk of harm to these defenders—than are those chimps who rarely or never display feelings of affection toward their associates.

Conclusion

From a sociological perspective, affection plays a similar role in chimp and in human communities.

Evidence

Humans are more likely risk danger to save someone they have affection for.

In chimp communities, chimps who show affection for others are more likely to be saved from danger by other group members than are those who don't show affection.

Evaluate

The author is just trying to establish that affection plays a similar role. Let's clarify for ourselves the role in each of chimp/human, to study the similarities and differences.

In humans, we're more willing to face risks for people we have affection for. If I really like Eddie at the office, I'm more willing to face risks for him than for Stuart, whom I don't really like.

In chimps, we're more willing to face risks for the gregarious (outgoing, affectionate, life-of-the-party) chimps than for the shy ones. The ones who go around giving out affection, grabbing your arm, giving you big hugs, high fives ... those are the ones we protect. The wallflowers who have closed body language don't get saved.

The sameness is affection and risking danger to save.

The difference is that in the human example, the recipient of affection is being saved by others.

In the chimp example, the giver of affection is being saved by others.

Goal

Since the author wants to assume these two situations are the same, she must be assuming that the people who give out affection, get back affection. That makes the chimp and human example more fair to compare.

21.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. Chimps express their emotions behaviorally

    Too Strong: whenever

    The author hasn't committed herself to thinking that chimps or humans always express their emotions behaviorally. In fact, the existence of the shy chimps who don't display feelings of attraction could be an example of chimps who feel emotions but don't express them behaviorally.

    7% picked this

  2. Correct

    Feelings of affection in chimp

    Why this is right

    This gets at the "those who give out affection, get back affection". In order for these two cases to be comparable, there has to be some overlap between the chimp fact and the human fact. Currently, there isn't. The human fact is that targets of affection get saved from harm more. The chimp fact is that givers of affection get saved from harm more. For affection to be playing the same role based on these two examples, there needs to be an overlap between givers of affection and receivers of affection. That's what this answer is saying: it must be that at least sometimes those who give out affection receive that affection reciprocated by someone else. If we negated this, and we were saying that "affection was never reciprocated", that would mean a (tragic) chimp society in which there was never mutual affection. A chimp who displayed affection to others would never get affection in return. Other chimps would never feel affection towards him. That would be a big objection to the argument because it would create an irreparable difference between the chimp example of affection and the human example.

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

    56% picked this

  3. Feelings of affection are the

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: the only Only Thing Mentioned ? Only Thing The author doesn't need to assume that affection is the only reason we ever protect each other. This is a common trap answer where they try to get students to think, "if feelings of affection are the only reason he mentioned, then maybe he assumes that feelings of affection are the only reason." This is the same flawed interpretation of Black Lives Matter: "If he only mentioned black lives, then maybe he assumes that only black lives matter."

    12% picked this

  4. Expression of affection in chimps

    Too Strong: limited to

    If we negate this answer, it will be saying that chimps are sometimes affectionate with chimps that are outside of their social group. Would that be a big objection? Nope. So this can't be the correct answer. Saying that affection was limited to a chimp's social group was stronger than anything the author needs to assume.

    7% picked this

  5. Feelings of affection, in both

    Too Strong: usually

    We don't have any information about frequency of altruism, as a mode of expressing affection. This answer is saying the author needs to assume that 51% or more displays of affection are altruism. Would it hurt the argument if only 49% were altruistic, and the other displays of affection were 51% nuzzling and snuggling? Of course not. The "usually" is how you judge the truth value of that claim, and it's the issue of 51% vs. 49% is not crucial to this argument.

    18% 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