PrepTest 136, Section 4, Question 22
Meerkat "sentinels," so-called because they watch for predators(79 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- Aappealing to evidence(10 more words not shown)
- Bappealing to evidence(8 more words not shown)
- Cinferring solely from(17 more words not shown)
- Dinferring solely from(19 more words not shown)
- Econcluding that a(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Surviving more often does not tell us why the sentinel gives a warning. Perhaps it is simply closer to a hole and can escape more quickly than the foraging meerkats.
The author is right that this advantage does not automatically make the behavior entirely selfish. But what establishes the next claim—that the behavior is motivated at least partly by helping others?
The bark alerts the foragers to danger. That helps them, but the sentinel could still have a selfish reason. Perhaps keeping the foragers alive means food keeps coming back to the group, including the sentinel. That possibility would let the behavior benefit others without establishing an unselfish motive.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I want to challenge the move from a helpful result to a conclusion about motivation. The author needs evidence of why the sentinel acts, not just evidence that other meerkats benefit.
Working the answers
- A
The warning's benefit to the other meerkats does not undermine the claim of an altruistic motive. It is compatible with that motive. The problem is that the benefit does not establish the motive on its own.
- B
The argument does not simply assume that the sentinel has an altruistic motive and then repeat that as the conclusion. It cites the observable effect of the bark as evidence. That evidence leaves a gap, but it is not the conclusion restated.
- CCorrect
The effect is warning other meerkats about danger. The author treats that effect as a purpose of the sentinel's behavior. But perhaps the sentinel simply cries out because it is startled, and the cry happens to warn the others. That would preserve the helpful effect without the intended helpful purpose. Knowing what an action accomplishes does not by itself establish why the animal performs it.
- D
The author concludes that the behavior is motivated at least partly by altruism, not that it is entirely altruistic. D describes a stronger conclusion than the argument makes. Our objection still applies to the actual, more limited conclusion because even some altruistic motivation needs support.
- E
This would reject the claim of selfishness merely because nobody had proved it. The author instead offers positive evidence—the warning bark—and tries to infer an altruistic motive from it. The mistake concerns what that evidence establishes, not simply an absence of evidence for the opposing view.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.