PrepTest 113, Section 2, Question 5
Although consciousness seems to arise from physical processes,(28 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the argument(10 more words not shown)
- APhysical theories can(4 more words not shown)
- BAn explanation of(12 more words not shown)
- CThe physical structures(7 more words not shown)
- DConsciousness arises from(8 more words not shown)
- EAn explanation of(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if consciousness is one of the physical functions these theories explain?
The passage begins by allowing that consciousness seems to arise from physical processes. I can follow that starting point: we experience the world, and the author is considering an account connected to physical activity. Then we get a limit on physical theories—they explain structures and functions—and a conclusion that they cannot explain consciousness.
Something is missing between that limit and the conclusion. The author hasn't established that consciousness falls outside what those theories can explain. My first way of putting the needed assumption is that consciousness isn't merely physical. Otherwise, why couldn't the stated kind of theory cover it?
What we’re looking for
We're asked for an assumption that makes the conclusion follow. So look for a rule that puts explaining consciousness beyond the range the premise gives physical theories. We need to supply that connection rather than settle the broader philosophical question from our own beliefs.
Working the answers
- A
Even granting this restriction, consciousness could be a physical phenomenon. A doesn't tell us whether it falls inside or outside that category. It repeats a limit on the theories without connecting consciousness to the limit, so the conclusion still doesn't follow.
- BCorrect
Explaining consciousness requires more than explaining physical structures and functions. The premise says physical theories can explain only those structures and functions. Their explanatory reach therefore falls short of what consciousness requires.
This is more precise than simply declaring consciousness nonphysical. We don't have to decide everything about what consciousness is made of or how it arises. We only need the mismatch between what must be explained and what a strictly physical theory can explain. B establishes that mismatch.
- C
Not knowing the structures and functions now doesn't show that physical theories can never explain consciousness. They might become known later. The conclusion rules out an entire kind of explanation; C supplies only a current gap in knowledge.
- D
This makes the processes that give rise to consciousness entirely explainable by physical theories. It doesn't establish that consciousness requires something those theories cannot explain. Explaining the underlying processes might not settle every question about consciousness, but D still supplies no reason for the claimed inability. It points toward explanatory success rather than furnishing the needed limit.
- E
This tells us how an explanation of physical structures and functions must be expressed. It doesn't tell us why such an explanation would be inadequate for consciousness. We could follow E's rule and still ask whether explaining those structures and functions explains consciousness too. B answers the missing question; E leaves it open.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.