Q14 - In a learning experiment

[peg_city]

Why is E wrong in this situation? There seems to be little difference between B and E.

Thanks

[maryadkins]

The core is:

Kinesthesia hasn't been shown to be irrelevant to maze-learning.

-->

Kinesthesia is sufficient for maze learning.

What's the problem? Something not being irrelevant doesn't make it sufficient. If you have a buddy who can never wake up on time, what is sufficient for his waking up? 1. His alarm clock goes off. 2. He isn't hungover or exhausted from playing video games all night. 3. He doesn't just ignore the alarm clock. We'd say his alarm clock actually going off is not irrelevant to his getting up--it may be necessary--but that doesn't make it sufficient. All sorts of other things have to happen for him to wake up.

The same thing is true here. (B) captures the difference between kinesthesia being possibly necessary versus it's being sufficient. Even if the mice need it for maze-learning, maybe they need something else, too. The experiment doesn't give us enough to know what else is required.

(A) is irrelevant.
(C) is also irrelevant. We aren't concerned with how it takes place.
(D) is wrong because it's actually not determined by the study that rats can maze-learn by kinesthesia alone. And the rest of (D) is irrelevant.
(E) is tricky. It takes the lack of knowledge that kinesthesia is sufficient and turns it into knowledge that kinesthesia is insufficient. We don't know whether kinesthesia is sufficient or not. (E) tells us that we do.

[sr]

I don't understand how it can be B because of the following:
If kinesthesia were needed in combination with another sense (such as sight for example) those results would have been displayed in the experiment. The mouse who had no sight would not have the 'combination' and would have performed worse than the others.

[john.o.wray]

I got this one wrong too. After going through it, here's what I've gleaned:

I initially was looking for an answer that said something to the effect of "There could be another factor, like X, that could affect the rats."

B, while it words it in an odd way, says that. It says that there could be another sense that the rats are using COUPLED with kinesthesia. I crossed this out initially because I thought that all of the other sense had been ruled out, but just because three of the senses were ruled out doesn't mean that all of them are.

When going through LR, keep in mind that when they list off things in the prompt, it isn't all encompassing unless they specifically say.

[wguwguwgu]

I initially was looking for an answer that said something to the effect of "There could be another factor, like X, that could affect the rats."

B, while it words it in an odd way, says that. It says that there could be another sense that the rats are using COUPLED with kinesthesia. I crossed this out initially because I thought that all of the other sense had been ruled out, but just because three of the senses were ruled out doesn't mean that all of them are.

I don't think this is what B is saying. From Line 5-8, the stimulus made it clear that "ONLY kinesthesia is not shown to be disposable". There is no factor X that would be shown to be indisposable, it is about the senses what were already mentioned and shown to be disposable.

I think the point is that maybe kinesthesia needs SOME other senses to co-operate, but not SPECIFICALLY which one. So if seeing is defect, it can work with smell and the rats are fine. If smell is defect, it can work with hearing, and the rats are still fine.

The only "experiment" to refute B and prove kinesthesia is really sufficient would be to get rid of ALL senses at the same time and produce some rats who are blind, deaf and can't smell. If the only sense they possess is kinesthesia and they still do well in the maze test, then you can say kinesthesia is sufficient. But the facts provided in the stimulus are not enough, they only prove that kinesthesia is necessary, but not that it's sufficient.

[pateljay.osu]

I don't understand how it can be B because of the following:
If kinesthesia were needed in combination with another sense (such as sight for example) those results would have been displayed in the experiment. The mouse who had no sight would not have the 'combination' and would have performed worse than the others.

Answer choice (B) does not state that there is only one possible combination. Choice (B) says at least one additional sense is required for maze learning. So it can still be plausible if the mice need Kinesthesia + [hearing and/or sight and/or smell] for maze learning.

[dayani_elika]

Can someone please explain exactly why D is wrong, I am still not understanding.

[sumukh09]

Can someone please explain exactly why D is wrong, I am still not understanding.

D just restates the problem with the argument and adds another other element, that is completely irrelevant, to confuse you.

The problem with the argument is that they use their findings to conclude kinesthesia is enough for rats to learn mazes.

D says that it can be determined from the data that kinesthesia alone is enough for rats to learn how to run mazes; you don't need to continue reading the next bit of D because the first half of D is enough for us to rule it out as an answer choice. Why? Because it concedes exactly what we don't want it to concede, that is, it supports the idea that kinesthesia is sufficient for maze learning, but of course, that's exactly what's wrong with argument. The flaw is that maybe there is something other than kinesthesia that accounts for the ability of rats to learn how to run mazes.

B, on the other hand, is the correct answer choice because it provides us with something the argument may have overlooked. Perhaps kinesthesia does depend, to whatever degree, on one or more of the other senses to enable maze-learning by rats.

[drunkendoggy]

I also had a tough time choosing between B and E but I ruled out E for two reasons

1) How do you know that maze learning is dependent on atleast two sources from the data? I think the data was a crap study because you only have mice that exhibit one characteristic of blindness, lack of smell, etc but not of any combinations

2) Again, how can you really determine or not determine from such a limited study?

[Jdanz653]

When I first read this stimulus I thought we could have been dealing with a correlation flaw . Is that not the case ?

[tommywallach]

You can never know definitively if a question will be taking on causation/correlation, even if you see that flaw. Sometimes arguments have multiple flaws, so you'll have to stay on your toes.

-t

[comeau.celina]

Originally, I was stuck between B and D , but after careful consideration I chose B.

In the stimulus, it states that all the rats were either missing one sense (deaf, blind, no smell) or they were missing none at all. Never in the stimulus does it say a rat was missing ALL the senses. Therefore, one must be able to detect that the rats have AT least one sense, or more.

Moving on to the answers...

B is correct because it re states the inference I have stated above. Yes, kinaesthesia is sufficient, but it also cannot be concluded as the ONLY factor since all of the rats had at least one, or more senses. Also, it is important to note here, that B begins with POSSIBILITY.

E is incorrect because of the word DETERMINED and DEPENDS. We cannot for sure, with 100% guarantee that that the data relies/ depends on at least two.(Perhaps it is only kinaesthesia) B and E are similar, but my thought was between DETERMINED/ DEPENDS (E) and POSSIBILITY (B).

Maybe my thought process was wrong, but it made sense to me. I hope it helps!

[jambam]

I understand that B is correct but feel E is correct as well.

The stimulus' conclusion is essentially that kinesthesia alone is sufficient for maze-learning. E states it's not sufficient because maze-learning requires kinesthesia and at least one other source of sensory stimulation, therefore falsifying the author's conclusion.

Why would the indetermination of the other source(s) of sensory stimulation affect E's appropriateness as an answer?

B provides reason to believe that kinesthesia might not be sufficient whereas E indicates that kinesthesia is definitely not sufficient.

Is my reasoning flawed?

[AlexisE386]

I have a problem with (A). I don't know what it means....... can anyone explain it for me? thx in advance

[smiller]

I have a problem with (A). I don't know what it means....... can anyone explain it for me? thx in advance

The second sentence of the stimulus states that the different rats learned to run the maze in "much" the same amount of time, not exactly the same amount. This indicates that there were small differences. Choice (A) focuses on that. Choice (A) states that these differences didn't exhibit any pattern related to the groups of rats, such as the deaf rats tending to finish slightly faster than the blind rats.

The correct answer choice is supposed to describe a criticism that could be applied to the argument. Unlike some other LR questions, this one doesn't say, "which of the following, if true..." Because of this, we should be suspicious of choice (A). The stimulus doesn't indicate whether the differences fell into a systematic pattern or not, so we don't know if choice (A) is relevant or not.