PrepTest 118, Section 3, Question 25
Helena: Extroversion, or sociability, is not biologically determined.(47 more words not shown)
Jay's response suggests that he(6 more words not shown)
- Abiological factors play(9 more words not shown)
- Bmost but not(13 more words not shown)
- Cchildren whose biological(22 more words not shown)
- Dbiological factors do(9 more words not shown)
- Eenvironmental factors can(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Raising a child in a more sociable household could matter without biology disappearing from the picture. Helena's comparison shows a tendency: children of introverted biological parents are more sociable when adopted by extroverts than when they aren't adopted. That doesn't tell us how much of their sociability comes from each influence.
I'd want a fuller comparison. For example, how do the adopted children compare with the extroverted parents' biological children? That could help us investigate the competing influences, although one comparison wouldn't settle every question about cause.
Jay points out that some adopted children remain introverted. But exceptions don't disprove a tendency. If Helena meant only that upbringing can make a difference, those children wouldn't refute her. Jay appears to hear a stronger claim, one that leaves biology out altogether.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what Jay interpreted Helena to mean. My initial expectation would be something like treating extroverted parenting as a guarantee of extroversion. The choices may phrase his interpretation differently. What matters is the stronger claim his response is aimed at, not whether we've proved that his counterargument succeeds.
Working the answers
- A
A partial biological role leaves room for both upbringing and biology. Children who remain introverted would be compatible with that mixed explanation. Jay treats those children as an objection to Helena, which suggests he has heard her as excluding biology, not accepting a partial role for it.
- B
Most but not all already allows exceptions. Jay's observation that some children remain introverted wouldn't challenge this claim. Also, becoming more sociable than another group doesn't necessarily mean becoming extroverted outright. B doesn't capture the stronger interpretation behind his response.
- C
This says the adopted children tend not to be more sociable. That's the opposite of Helena's stated comparison. Jay isn't reporting that she denied the tendency; he objects that there are children who remain introverted despite their extroverted upbringing. C doesn't explain the target of that objection.
- DCorrect
Jay reads 'not biologically determined' as leaving biological factors no role at all. He then points to children whose introversion persists despite early adoption by extroverts, apparently offering them as evidence against that exclusion.
This captures the stronger interpretation we were looking for, although it isn't worded as the parenting guarantee we first imagined. Those two claims aren't identical: ruling out biology wouldn't by itself rule out every other environmental influence. D gives the relevant interpretation of Helena's claim. We don't have to endorse Jay's response as a complete proof of a biological cause.
- E
Saying the environment sometimes matters more still permits biology to influence a child. It also permits some children to remain introverted. Jay's exceptions wouldn't refute that limited claim. His response is aimed at a stronger exclusion of biology, not the possibility that environmental influences sometimes outweigh it.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.