Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S1 · Q9 Essayist: Practical intelligence is the ability

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

Essayist: Practical intelligence is the ability to discover means to ends.

Conclusion (Thus)

If there were a being that was always given whatever it wants immediately, that being could never become intelligent in the practical sense.

Evidence

Practical intelligence is the ability to discover means to ends.

This ability is a skill that does not develop on its own.

Evaluate

We're trying to prove that a certain hypothetical being "could never become intelligent in the practical sense".

Did the argument provide a proving mechanism for that sort of idea? Do we have a rule that says,

Yes, the first sentence defines practical intelligence, so we could re-frame it as this rule:

if you don't have ability to discover means to ends, then you don't have practical intelligence.

So if we're trying prove that a being doesn't have practical intelligence, we need to establish that it doesn't have the ability to discover means to ends, which is a skill that doesn't develop on its own.

All we know this hypothetical being is that it would be given anything it wants immediately. So the argument is assuming, .

Goal

Let's find an answer convincing us that a being who was always given anything it wants instantly would be a being that never discovers means to ends.

The conclusion of the essayist's argument can be properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

A being cannot acquire a
Out of Scope: help of others
We want to prove that this hypothetical being will not acquire the skill of discovering means to ends. This answer says a hypothetical being will not acquire a skill without the help of others. Did the argument say whether this hypothetical being would / wouldn't have the help of others, when it comes to acquiring the skill of discovering means to ends? Nope. Since we don't know that this being will be "without the help of others", we can't use this rule to prove that the being will not discover means to ends.
3% picked this
Correct
Skills are acquired only if
Why this is right
We want to prove that this hypothetical being will not acquire the skill of discovering means to ends. This answer says a hypothetical being will not acquire a skill if the skill isn't needed. Did the argument say whether this hypothetical being would need the skill of discovering means to ends? It did not explicitly, but we're allowed to use our common sense here. The idea of "means to an ends" is the idea of "I want X (that's the end). How do I get X? (what's the means of getting it)" We normal people think, "I want a Tesla. How do I go about getting a Tesla" and in trying to figure out a way, we are discovering the means to an end. This hypothetical being says, "I want a Tesla", and a Tesla immediately appears. So she has no need to develop the ability of discovering the means to an end. She's got instant gratification for any end she desires. Since she has no need to discover how to get what she wants (she always and instantly gets what she wants), according to this answer she will never acquire the skill of being able discover how to get what she wants. Someone who is always instantly gratified never needs the ability to discover means to ends. So according to this answer, they will never acquire the ability to discover means to ends. So according to the first sentence, they will never have practical intelligence. Thus, we proved the conclusion.
Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
62% picked this
The best way to learn
Too Weak
Since our hypothetical being would never be deprived of anything, she would definitely not be learning to acquire the skill of discovering means to ends the best way. But that doesn't mean she wouldn't acquire the skill. This answer still leaves open the possibility that the hypothetical being might acquire the ability to discover means to ends.
19% picked this
A being with practical intelligence
Unrelated to Goal
We want to prove that this hypothetical being will not acquire the skill of discovering means to ends, so that we can derive the conclusion that this being would not have practical intelligence. This has nothing to with that goal, and it's actually talking about people who do have practical intelligence, so it has nothing to with the conclusion either.
8% picked this
If a being were always
Unrelated to Goal
We want to prove that a hypothetical being who is never deprived will not acquire the skill of discovering means to ends, so that we can derive the conclusion that this being would not have practical intelligence. This has nothing to with that goal, and it's actually talking about people who are always deprived, so it has nothing to with the conclusion either.
7% 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