Q24 - Explanation must be distinguished from

[skapur777]

Really confused by this one but it was the only one I got wrong in the section! Here is my answer breakdown:

A- No, that goes against what is said in the stimulus
B- nope, reasons must form an essential part of its explanation, and be sufficent reasons not just normal reasons.
C-I put this down but I know it is wrong now. There is nothing state that psychologists believe that the justification for an action NEVER forms an essential part, just that it OFTEN does not.
D- No...
E- How is this correct? I just thought there must be sufficient reasons FOR the causes of actions and thus forms an essential part of the explanation...but where does it say that the reasons must sometimes BE the causes of actions?

Very confused

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

So I was just working through this problem the other day with a student and I'd agree that on this one elimination may simply be the way to go. But upon review we can verify that answer choice (E) follows from the statements in the stimulus. As to the rest of your reasons (causes) for eliminating the other answer choices, you got it exactly right.

With a bit more practice, you'll learn to eliminate (C). You'll probably never need to verify something as complicated as answer choice (E) during the test - that'd be tough!

From the last statement we know...

if an action is rational, then the justification forms an essential part of the explanation.

Amongst the commas we learn that a "justification" of an action is the "reasons" for that action. So we can substitute "reasons" for "justification" to get

if an action is rational, then reasons must form an essential part of the explanation.

From the second sentence we learn that an explanation is the causes of an action. So with further substitution we get

if an action is rational, then reasons must form an essential part of the causes of an action.

it's not precise, and it seems like magic, but it sounds like answer choice (E).

What do you think?

[mcrittell]

Mshermn, are you saying that's how you would verify E, or that's how you would choose E?

Totally lost on how to attack this problem..

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I was trying to say that it might be easier for a lot of folks to eliminate answer choice (C) than it would be to confirm that answer choice (E) can be concluded from the given statements.

From the last statement we know...

if an action is rational, then the justification forms an essential part of the explanation.

Amongst the commas we learn that a "justification" of an action is the "reasons" for that action. So we can substitute "reasons" for "justification" to get

if an action is rational, then reasons must form an essential part of the explanation.

From the second sentence we learn that an explanation is the causes of an action. So with further substitution we get

if an action is rational, then reasons must form an essential part of the causes of an action.

Was my thought process for showing that answer choice (E) can be concluded from the given statements.

[mcrittell]

Can you explain how you would eliminate the choices; still having trouble with that.

[zhanga]

A) Not supported by the stimulus. It only says if an action is justified, there are sufficient reasons for performing the action. No mention on whether a justified action has a cause.

B) The conclusion reworded is basically, if an action is rational, its justifications, reasons for action, forms an essential part of its explanation. B reverses the conditional relationship.

C) The stimulus says that psychologists believe that justifications OFTEN forms no part of the explanation. The answer exaggerates that fact by concluding that they believe it NEVER forms an essential part of its explanation.

D) It contradicts the stimulus that says every human action potentially has an explanation. So we know that we can potentially discover the cause of all actions.

E) Paraphrases the conclusion so it is correct. If an action is ration, the reasons must be an essential part of its explanation, which is the causes of the actions.

Hope this helps.

[jionggangtu]

this is a complicated question.

In a real test, how do we solve this problem quickly? any good tips?

[etwcho]

I thought i would share how i got through this problem quickly. Please feel free to critique! I am myself wondering whether this is a reliable method.
First when I saw the denseness of the passage I quickly read skimmed until I came across the keyword However. From here I realized that RATIONAL must be a sufficient condition. Also RATIONAL is a new word so I knew it couldnt connect to any conditional to become a necessary.

From here I delved into the question. A, c, and d were quickly eliminated. And upon choosing between b and e, I checked where RATIONAL was located on the conditional statement, which eliminates b.
A) 180
B) reversed
C) never is too strong
D) who said anything about discovery?
E) ditto



This way, i could get through this thing in about a min. Please let me know how you feel about this approach and i apologize in advance if i made any grammatical/spelling mistakes. Typing on a phone sucks.

[Carlystern]

Just to clarify, I understand the correct answer (E), but I had NO clue how to format the CL. You can't really do it, here, can you? You just basically find the conclusion and assess each answer to follow the same logic, right?

Carly

[michaelwcarper]

Just to clarify, I understand the correct answer (E), but I had NO clue how to format the CL. You can't really do it, here, can you? You just basically find the conclusion and assess each answer to follow the same logic, right?

Carly

Justified Action --> Person performing it has sufficient reason for action

Rational Action --> Justification forms an essential part of its explanation (AKA, sufficient reason for action must be part of cause for action)

A. Wrong because being Justified neither requires nor precludes having an explanation. 1st CL doesn't mention explanation.

B. Wrong because it not only reverses the 2nd CL, but it do so broadly: "any reason among the causes of an action" may not be a sufficient reason.

C. Other psychs. are irrelevant

D. Whether we can know the causes for action isn't discussed

E. This correct, but I think it can trip us up, since, like B, it's a bit broad. It doesn't replicate the 2nd CL exactly, as it omits "sufficient." However, this doesn't break it, since this broader statement still follows from the 2nd CL.

Moreover, it kind of restates the 2nd CL, which says that ALL rational actions will have reason as PART of explanation. E says that SOME rational actions will have reason as (presumably the ONLY) cause.

What I'm not sure about is how E gets past this issue: the 2nd CL mentions "part of explanation [ie cause]," but E implies that the reason must BE the cause.

[pbookworm]

Just a few more comments on some of the wrong answers.

C - It is not irrelevant. However, it is wrong. Some psychologists believe "justification often forms no part of the explanation". Often is the key word here. They do not believe justification never forms an essential part of the explanation. Also, essential goes too far.
D - If you look at the stimulus, it states "every human action potentially has an explanation", which means for every human action, it is possible to state the causes of that action. It is only out of scope not because of discovery, but because "actions" is too broad. The action should be human action, not all actions (animal actions, alien actions, whatever).

It's important to understand completely the reasons why an answer choice is wrong, and not simply denote it as irrelevant or out of scope!

[deddiekated]

Hello, I hope people still read these posts...because I need help!

Its partly about this stimulus and partly from another but would someone be kind to explain why the last sentence from this question is diagrammed

rational --> justification forms an essential part of explanation

BUT

"The only food in Diane's apartment is in her refrigerator." is diagrammed:

Food --> Fridge ???

(This sentence is from Answer choice A of PT54 Section 2 #23. I saw on the post for this question in Manhatten Prep that the conditional is diagrammed as above).

THANK YOU!!

[ohthatpatrick]

I think I answered your question in the other post you where you raised this issue. Let me know if not.

"only" / "only if" = attached to right side ideas
"the only" = attached to left side ideas

[deddiekated]

I think I answered your question in the other post you where you raised this issue. Let me know if not.

"only" / "only if" = attached to right side ideas
"the only" = attached to left side ideas

yes you did! Thank you! haha sorry i didnt know which post would be more appropriate to ask the question.