PrepTest 149, Section 3, Question 13
Science cannot adequately explain emotional phenomena such as(28 more words not shown)
The conclusion follows logically if(7 more words not shown)
- AWhatever is not(8 more words not shown)
- BNothing that can(10 more words not shown)
- CPhysics, chemistry, and(5 more words not shown)
- DWhatever is not(7 more words not shown)
- EEvery physical phenomenon(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not explained by science, therefore not physical? Those are different claims.
I might initially wonder whether brain chemistry could explain the emotional experiences listed. But for this argument we accept the premise that physics, chemistry, and neurophysiology can't explain them. The question is what that limitation establishes about the emotions themselves.
Be careful about the conclusion. The opening sentence says science cannot adequately explain these experiences; the final clause concludes that they are not physical phenomena. We're reasoning from a lack of explanation to a claim about what kind of thing emotions are.
What we’re looking for
For the assumption that makes the conclusion follow, we need a rule that lets the author make that move. Simply connecting the words 'physical' and 'explainable' in some direction won't be enough.
Working the answers
- A
This is tempting if we mistake the opening statement for the conclusion. A says that nonphysical things can't be scientifically explained. But we're trying to establish that these unexplained things are nonphysical. A doesn't rule out a physical thing that science also can't explain. In that case A could be true while the author's move from 'unexplained' to 'not physical' still failed. The direction matters.
- B
Even if a particular feeling can be experienced by only one subject and therefore can't be studied scientifically under this rule, we still haven't established that it isn't physical. That is the conclusion we need. B offers a possible reason something can't be studied, not a connection between the limits of scientific explanation and the physical/nonphysical distinction.
- C
Similar explanatory methods don't guarantee that the three disciplines can explain everything physical. They could share a framework and still leave a physical phenomenon unexplained. The conclusion needs a limit on what can count as physical, not merely a resemblance among the disciplines.
- D
This tells us something about phenomena already classified as nonphysical: they are emotional. But identifying something as emotional doesn't establish that it belongs to that nonphysical group. Physical phenomena could be emotional too under D. We still lack the rule that would exclude emotions from the physical category.
- ECorrect
Every physical phenomenon can be explained by at least one of these three disciplines. The premise says the emotions cannot be explained by them. The emotions therefore cannot belong to the physical category: if they did, E would require an explanation the premise says is unavailable. That's the connection the author needs. E doesn't claim other scientific fields don't exist or that they explain nothing. It says these three fields cover every physical phenomenon, which is enough to make their inability to explain the emotions decisive here.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 4Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 3, Question 7Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 4, Question 7Sufficient Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.