PrepTest 109, Section 4, Question 11
Even though apes are the only nonhuman creatures(35 more words not shown)
The conclusion in the passage(9 more words not shown)
- AHuman language is(3 more words not shown)
- BApes are incapable(5 more words not shown)
- CPhilosophical thought can(6 more words not shown)
- DSpeaking in human(8 more words not shown)
- EIt is more(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not asking a question doesn't mean you never thought about it.
The author observes that apes haven't used their human language skills to ask philosophical questions. Then the conclusion rules out philosophical thought in every nonhuman creature. That is a much bigger claim. What if an ape has a thought it never puts into words? What if another animal could express a philosophical idea in a way other than human language?
What we’re looking for
Let's accept the premise that only apes, among nonhuman creatures, can learn human language. We still need a reason that human language is the right place to look for all philosophical thought. For the necessary assumption, I'd expect the author to rely on a connection between having these thoughts and expressing them in human language. Otherwise, the absence of those questions doesn't settle whether the thoughts exist.
Working the answers
- A
The passage specifically allows apes to learn human language. The argument therefore doesn't depend on humans being the only creatures with that ability. Its attempted distinction is that apes have not used the ability for philosophical questions, not that apes lack it altogether.
- B
The argument doesn't require apes to be unable to think in human language. They might be able to think about ordinary matters in that language without asking philosophical questions. Conversely, the ability to learn the language doesn't, by itself, settle exactly how an ape thinks. B doesn't provide the required connection between philosophical thought and its expression.
- CCorrect
If philosophical thought could be expressed outside human language, the author's focus on human-language questions would leave another route unexplored. Nonhuman creatures unable to learn our language might still have a way to express such thoughts.
C rules out that alternative by making human language the only means of expressing philosophical thought. That is part of what the author relies on when using these language observations to exclude nonhuman creatures.
This is narrower than saying every philosophical thought must actually be expressed. C doesn't establish that an ape could never keep a thought to itself, and it doesn't fix every problem we raised. A necessary assumption can supply one required part of the reasoning without proving the whole conclusion.
- D
Whether speaking is easier than thinking doesn't tell us whether another creature has philosophical thoughts. Either activity could be harder, and the gap between not asking and not thinking would remain. The argument needs a connection, not a ranking of difficulty.
- E
The relative difficulty of learning language and expressing a philosophical question isn't the issue. Something can be difficult and still happen, or easy and remain undone. We need grounds for using the lack of human-language questions as evidence of absent thought.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.