LR Drill Set 4, Question 1
Philosopher: Behaviorists hold that we can recognize the(68 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- APeople often do(6 more words not shown)
- BBehavior cannot be(6 more words not shown)
- CGoals and results(6 more words not shown)
- DIt is wrong(10 more words not shown)
- EUnintended results may(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I hit the bird. That doesn't mean I was trying to hit the bird.
Suppose I throw a ball at a tree, miss, and accidentally hit a bird. Someone watching can see the result. But if that person concludes that hitting the bird was my purpose, they've mistaken what happened for what I wanted to happen. My bad aim matters.
That's why I'm suspicious of the behaviorists' claim that observing an action's result tells us its purpose. The philosopher shares that concern, then explains it: people sometimes fail to get the result they want, or produce a result they never expected. That makes sense. An outcome can differ from the goal that led someone to act.
What we’re looking for
Now we're asked for the main conclusion. What is all that reasoning supposed to establish? That the behaviorists are making a mistake by equating the result with the purpose. “People sometimes fail” is the reason for that objection, not the objection itself. We want the point the example helps us believe.
Working the answers
- A
People do sometimes fail to achieve their goals. But why does the philosopher mention that? Because it shows that the result of an action need not reveal the intention behind it. A supplies support for the conclusion. It stops before telling us what that support is supposed to establish.
- B
The philosopher isn't ruling out explanations based on conscious intent. Intent is exactly what the behaviorists risk overlooking when they focus on the result alone. Saying “I meant to hit the tree” could help explain my action even though I hit something else. B would reject a kind of explanation the argument leaves available.
- C
This introduces a claim about “successful agents” that the philosopher doesn't make. Someone can succeed at one task and fail at another. We don't need to classify people as successful or unsuccessful to understand the narrower point: the goal of a particular action can differ from its result.
- DCorrect
Equating intent with outcome means treating what someone meant to do as identical to what happened. The philosopher says that's a mistake, then supports the objection with failures and unforeseen results. D gives us the objection those examples are meant to establish.
- E
An unexpected outcome could indeed mislead someone watching. In the ball example, the observer might misunderstand my goal. But that's another way to explain why equating purpose with result is unreliable. The main conclusion is the criticism of that equation, rather than this possible consequence of making it.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.