LR Drill Set 10, Question 2
Psychologist: It had long been thought that the(72 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AThe psychologist's definitions(12 more words not shown)
- BAt least some(29 more words not shown)
- CThe laughter of(25 more words not shown)
- DAt least some(16 more words not shown)
- EThe mechanical device(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Did any of the subjects see or hear another person?
The study otherwise looks like good evidence against the old belief. Ninety-three of a representative hundred adults laughed while a machine tickled them in isolation. If the old view says the sensation normally produces laughter only when someone else can actually be seen or heard, that result looks troublesome for it.
My first concern would be whether someone else was observable. Were the observers really hidden? Was another person visible or audible? That would matter to the belief being tested.
What we’re looking for
For the necessary assumption, let's test what the argument relies on before treating these results as evidence against the old view. My first concern is still whether another person was observable. If someone else could actually be seen or heard, these laughs wouldn't show what the psychologist thinks they show. Let's see whether the answers address that concern or expose another step we need to examine.
Working the answers
- A
The observers report what the subjects do; the subjects aren't asked to classify their own reactions on a questionnaire. People could use different definitions in conversation while observers still identify the relevant physical behavior. Agreement between the subjects' definitions and the psychologist's isn't a required link in this argument.
- B
What these subjects would do if another person tickled them is a different situation. The argument uses their responses in isolation to challenge a requirement about seeing or hearing another person. It doesn't need some particular subset to have laughed under an ordinary human-tickling comparison too.
- CCorrect
Suppose every laugh came simply from finding the idea of a mechanical tickler funny. Then the machine might have amused the participants without the sensation of tickling causing any of the laughter. That would leave the old belief about the sensation unchallenged.
The argument therefore needs at least some laughter not to be explained entirely by that comic idea. C rules out that complete alternative explanation. It doesn't establish by itself that the sensation caused every laugh; it states a minimum the psychologist needs before relying on these laughs as evidence.
- D
This is close to the concern about hidden observers, but it changes actual perception into belief. A subject might suspect secret observation without seeing or hearing anyone. The old theory concerns what the subject actually sees or hears. The psychologist doesn't need some subjects to be free of all suspicions about being watched.
- E
The machine need not feel exactly like human tickling. It could create a recognizably different tickling sensation and still cause laughter without anyone else being visible or audible. What matters is whether the sensation produces laughter under the relevant conditions, not whether subjects could distinguish two sources of tickling.
More Necessary Assumption questions
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 1, Question 4Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 11, Question 7Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 10Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 11Necessary Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 14, Question 1Necessary Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.