PrepTest 110, Section 3, Question 17
Zoologist: Animals can certainly signal each other with(37 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AAnimals do not(8 more words not shown)
- BIf an animal's(18 more words not shown)
- CWhen signaling each(14 more words not shown)
- DIf a system(21 more words not shown)
- ESome animals that(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Making signals isn't automatically the same as having a language. An animal's call or gesture might convey something, but the zoologist wants evidence of a more particular ability: using sounds or gestures to refer to objects or ideas.
Why is that particular ability the test? The zoologist moves from 'we haven't established that they can refer to objects or ideas' to 'we haven't confirmed that they have language.' That reasoning needs a connection between referring to those things and possessing language.
Keep the conclusion modest. The zoologist isn't proving that animals have no language. The claim is that their ability to signal doesn't confirm that they do. An animal could turn out to possess language even if this particular observation isn't enough to establish it.
What we’re looking for
For the necessary assumption, I'd look for the missing requirement: to count as language, a system must be able to refer to concrete objects or abstract ideas. Without that requirement, why would the lack of proof about such references prevent these signals from confirming language?
Working the answers
- A
Animals could have the mental ability to entertain abstract ideas, and the zoologist could still ask whether their signals refer to objects or ideas. The argument concerns what the signals demonstrate about language, not whether animals are incapable of abstract thought. A is a much broader claim about their minds than the reasoning requires.
- B
This goes from not having language to being unable to entertain abstract ideas. That isn't the connection the argument uses. We need a requirement for a signaling system to qualify as language, not a further claim about what an animal without language can think. The zoologist doesn't have to rule out abstract thought without language.
- C
This is tempting because it appears to remove the very evidence the zoologist says is missing. But saying the signals haven't been shown to refer to objects or ideas isn't the same as saying they never do. They might have such references without the mere observation of signaling proving it.
The conclusion is only that language hasn't been confirmed by that observation. C also leaves the main connection unstated: why would referring to objects or ideas be required for language? It asserts an absence in the signals instead of supplying the requirement the reasoning depends on.
- DCorrect
This makes reference to objects or ideas a requirement for language. A system with no such expressions does not qualify. Now we can see why merely establishing sounds and gestures is not enough for the zoologist: we still need to establish the feature required to count those signals as language.
Without this assumption, a system that never referred to objects or ideas might still be a language. In that case, the missing evidence the zoologist points to would not establish the claimed gap in confirmation.
- E
The zoologist doesn't need to establish that any animals actually possess language. That's the question whose confirmation is at issue. E also says some can refer to both objects and ideas, while the argument concerns a requirement involving objects or ideas. Neither the existence claim nor the stronger 'both' claim is necessary here.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.