PrepTest 122, Section 2, Question 17
Human beings can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior without(22 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AComplex, goal-oriented behavior(2 more words not shown)
- BThe possession of(8 more words not shown)
- CAll forms of(7 more words not shown)
- DThe possession of(6 more words not shown)
- ESome intelligent human(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Where did intelligence come from? The evidence talks about complex, goal-oriented behavior. The conclusion talks about intelligence. We need a connection between them.
Let's accept the starting fact, even if it's hard to picture exactly how someone can carry out a complicated activity without awareness of doing it. The important point is that this kind of behavior can occur without that awareness. The author wants this example to show why intelligence alone wouldn't establish consciousness in nonhuman animals.
But what if the behavior in the example doesn't require intelligence? Then we would have learned that people can do something without awareness, while learning nothing about whether intelligence requires consciousness. The example would miss the conclusion's subject.
What we’re looking for
For the necessary assumption, I'd look for the missing connection: the complex, goal-oriented behavior must require intelligence. That would make the human example relevant to the claim about what intelligence, by itself, establishes. We don't need to assume that every intelligent action is complex or directed toward a goal.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
If this behavior requires intelligence, the example supplies intelligence operating without conscious awareness of what the person is doing. That's the connection the author needs to use the example against the claim that intelligence alone establishes consciousness.
Take away that connection: suppose the cited behavior could occur without intelligence. Then its occurrence without awareness wouldn't show us intelligence without awareness at all. The evidence would no longer do the job assigned to it. A ties the behavior in the premise to the intelligence discussed in the conclusion.
- B
This concerns what having consciousness tells us about intelligence. The argument asks the other question: what does having intelligence tell us about consciousness? Those directions are different. The author could accept that consciousness always involves intelligence while still denying that intelligence establishes consciousness.
- C
This also starts with conscious behavior. It says that behavior involves intelligence, but it doesn't connect our example of behavior without conscious awareness to intelligence. C could be true or false without repairing the missing connection on which this argument depends.
- D
This says intelligence guarantees consciousness. That is the very connection the conclusion says we cannot establish merely by identifying intelligence in an animal. D would oppose the argument rather than provide the assumption it needs.
- E
This adds some intelligent behavior outside the complex, goal-oriented category. The author doesn't need those other examples. We need to know that the particular behavior already cited involves intelligence; finding intelligent behavior of some different kind leaves that question unanswered. E also doesn't tell us whether those other behaviors occur with conscious awareness.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.