PrepTest 152, Section 4, Question 6
Psychologist: Thinking can occur without language.(58 more words not shown)
The statement that a thought(22 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(15 more words not shown)
- BIt is attributed(10 more words not shown)
- CIt is the(6 more words not shown)
- DIt is used(11 more words not shown)
- EIt states the(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Does noticing something unusual necessarily involve thinking? A baby reacting to a three-eyed face doesn't, by itself, tell us everything happening in the baby's mind.
The psychologist supplies an explanation: the baby probably compares the strange picture with an internal picture of a typical face. That is how the psychologist gets to the claim that a thought of a typical face exists in the baby's mind. We don't have to prove this is the only possible explanation to understand the argument's steps.
What we’re looking for
Now ask what that claim does. The babies have no knowledge of language, yet the psychologist thinks they have thoughts. That supports the broader opening claim that thinking can occur without language. For this role question, the statement sits in the middle: the observations support it, and it supports the main point. The word 'thus' tells us to look for an inference; it doesn't tell us that we've reached the argument's final destination.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The psychologist draws the conclusion about thoughts of faces from the infants' response to unusual pictures and the proposed comparison with an internal representation. Then the psychologist uses those thoughts, together with the infants' lack of language, to support the more general conclusion that thinking can occur without language. The statement both receives support and supplies support.
- B
The research attributed to the researchers concerns the infants' ability to detect unusual pictures. The psychologist then interprets that finding and draws the statement about a thought of a typical face. B misidentifies that statement as the researchers' main conclusion instead of describing its role in the psychologist's reasoning.
- C
The main point is the first sentence: thinking can occur without language. The claim about these particular infants is an example meant to support that broader point. Being a conclusion doesn't automatically make a statement the main conclusion.
- D
The argument accepts that the infants have no knowledge of language. Their supposed thinking matters precisely because they lack language. The statement isn't used to prove that they secretly know a language; it is used to show that language isn't required for thought.
- E
The statement isn't introduced as a fact whose cause the argument will explain. It is an inference drawn from the infants' behavior, then used as evidence for a broader claim. E leaves out both parts of that supporting role.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.