PrepTest 140, Section 3, Question 3
When chimpanzees become angry at other chimpanzees, they(50 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(18 more words not shown)
- AChimpanzees engage in(14 more words not shown)
- BMaking threat gestures(10 more words not shown)
- CThreat gestures and(12 more words not shown)
- DChimpanzees often respond(11 more words not shown)
- EThe chimpanzees that(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I would expect a threat to be a warning that an attack might come next. But these chimpanzees usually do one or the other: threaten without attacking, or attack without first making the threat gestures.
Why wouldn't the threatening behavior escalate? Both threats and attacks occur when the chimpanzees are angry, so anger alone doesn't explain why the two so rarely come together.
One possibility is that a warning makes the other chimpanzee ready to defend itself. An attacker might do better by skipping the warning. Another possibility is that an especially angry chimpanzee attacks immediately instead of taking time to gesture. Those are guesses, not facts we've established. There isn't one explanation we have to force onto the choices.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to explain the pattern. Whatever answer we pick should connect the gestures with the absence of an attack. Merely explaining why chimpanzees gesture, or confirming that they rarely attack afterward, won't tell us why these behaviors so often stay separate.
Working the answers
- A
Preserving social status could explain why a chimpanzee makes threatening gestures. But why wouldn't it then attack to preserve that status? A purpose for the gesture doesn't explain the lack of an attack. We still need the connection between those two behaviors.
- BCorrect
Here's another explanation: the gestures let the chimpanzee release its aggressive feelings. After grunting, spitting, or gesturing, it has less need to act on those feelings physically. The display can take the place of an attack instead of leading up to one.
That makes sense of the separation. A chimpanzee that vents through gestures may avoid attacking; one that attacks without gesturing hasn't first used that outlet. We don't need to claim that every gesture prevents an attack. A tendency to reduce aggression helps explain the pattern we're given.
- C
There could be many other aggressive behaviors, but that doesn't explain the relationship between these two. Adding another way to display anger leaves our question intact: why aren't threat gestures commonly followed by attacks?
- D
A second chimpanzee responding with its own gestures could produce an exchange of threats. Why wouldn't that exchange then turn physical? This gives us another behavior in the sequence without explaining why escalation rarely follows.
- E
This does add a pattern about individual chimpanzees: frequent gesturers are infrequent attackers. But it still doesn't tell us why. Are they venting their anger? Are they trying to avoid a fight for another reason? E describes another association that needs an explanation. B supplies a reason for the association.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.