LR Drill Set 13, Question 1
An animal's intelligence is not always proportional to(48 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the argument(11 more words not shown)
- AAny animal that(12 more words not shown)
- BAnimals most of(8 more words not shown)
- CThe behavior patterns(17 more words not shown)
- DInsects are the(14 more words not shown)
- EIf some behavior(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't instinct and intelligence go together?
The author wants to show that time spent on complex, apparently purposeful behavior isn't always a good measure of intelligence. Insects are supposed to be the counterexample: they spend lots of time doing impressive-looking things, but those patterns are built into their nervous systems before birth.
That's an explanation of where the behavior comes from. It doesn't yet tell us how intelligent the insects are. Maybe an animal could act on instinct and also be intelligent. The argument treats those descriptions as incompatible without giving us a rule that makes them incompatible.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption that makes the conclusion follow. We need to exclude intelligence in the insects on the basis the argument offers: their behavior is predominantly instinctive. Then they would give us the intended counterexample—lots of complex behavior without the high intelligence that a proportional relationship would predict.
Working the answers
- A
This tells us about animals whose behavior is not purely instinctive. The insects are described on the other side of that distinction. Even if noninstinctive behavior establishes high intelligence, it doesn't tell us whether instinct-driven insects could be intelligent too. We need to rule out that combination.
- BCorrect
An animal whose behavior is mostly instinctive cannot be intelligent under this rule. Apply it to the insects described: their usual complex patterns are instinctive, so their extensive apparently purposeful activity doesn't establish high intelligence.
Now the author has the needed contrast between the time spent behaving in a complex way and actual intelligence. The rule may be stronger than we'd accept as a real theory of animal minds, but the question asks what would make this reasoning work if assumed.
- C
More information about how complex the behavior is doesn't establish that insects lack intelligence. Even if they had the most complex behavior on Earth, they could also be extremely intelligent unless we add the missing exclusion. C develops one side of the intended contrast and leaves the other side unsupported.
- D
Being the only animals with these instinctive complex patterns wouldn't show that insects are unintelligent. Other animals could have the same pattern or not; either way, we still need to know why instinct prevents intelligence. Uniqueness isn't the missing connection.
- E
This explains what instinctive behavior means in terms of being coded before birth. The passage already gives that description. It still doesn't tell us whether a creature with such programming can be intelligent. Restating how the behavior originates doesn't settle the conclusion about intelligence.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 4Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 3, Question 7Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 4, Question 7Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 5, Question 8Sufficient Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.