Logical Reasoning

PT23 · S3 · Q8 One researcher writes, “Human beings

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

One researcher writes, “Human beings are innately aggressive.” As evidence, the researcher cites the prevalence of warfare in history, and then discounts any current disinclination to fight: “The most peaceable peoples of today were often ravagers of yesteryear and will probably fight again in the future.” But if some peoples are peaceable now, then aggression itself cannot be coded in our genes, only the potential for it.

Conclusion (implied)

This argument for the innate aggressiveness of humans is weak.

Evidence

There are currently peaceful humans, but these researchers write them off by saying,

Okay, well then isn't it just as true to say that we're innately peaceful too?

If some people are peaceful now, then we're clearly not forced to be aggressive; we just have the potential for it in our genes.

And if "innate" only means possible, then any potential behavior a human could have would be innate, in which case the word has no meaning.

Evaluate

Method questions tend to pull from a relatively finite list of stock "moves". - analogy - implications of opponent's logic - example / counterexample of principle - rule out competing alternatives - make a distinction / define a term - call out dubious assumption - raise overlooked consideration - suggest alternate explanation

This author definitely called into question the definition of the term "innate". She also called out the researchers for ignoring potential counterevidence (some people are currently peaceful) and talked about the implications of that counterevidence.

Goal

It would be hard to fully guess what the answer will say. Ultimately, we pick anything that matches. But from that stock list of moves, the one about "making a distinction / defining a term" seems to jump out the most to me.

8.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the technique used in the passage to weaken the argument for the claim that aggressiveness is innate to human beings?

  1. The accuracy of the historical

    Out of Scope: impugning historical data

    This author implicitly accepts the prevalence of warfare in history. Nothing she says pushes back against that.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    The force of the concept

    Why this is right

    This is basically the "define a term" answer -- the author was asking about what we mean by innate. The force of the concept, as intended by the researcher, seems to be that humans are genetically programmed to be aggressive. But the author is saying the current existence of peaceful people shows that that concept of "innate" would be too strong. However, if we adopt a weaker definition of "innate", meaning "genetically possible, or genetically likely in certain environments", then you could call pretty much every human capacity innate. "then everything we do is innate and the word has no meaning" = calling into question the force of the concept of innateness.

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

    82% picked this

  3. An attempt is made to

    Too Strong: no genetically based traits

    This author is never arguing the scientifically blasphemous position that "there are no genetically based traits". That would be essentially contradicting all the consensus science since Gregor Mendel & Darwin.

    14% picked this

  4. An attempt is made to

    Out of Scope: emotional considerations

    The attempt to undermine the argument takes place in the final two sentences (following the "But"). Nothing in either of those two sentences is saying that the original argument appealed to emotional considerations.

    1% picked this

  5. An attempt is made to

    Too Strong: all people are peaceable

    The author never committed herself to the crazy-extreme view that "all people are peaceable". The author seems to be suggesting that humans have the potential for aggressive and peaceable behavior, so to say we're innately one or the other would be silly.

    1% 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