Q26 - Reza: Language requires the use

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

There are three important claims that rely on conditional logic. Combining all three yields the result that conceptual thought is required for language - answer choice (A).

Statement 1
Language requires the use of verbal signs.

Statement 2
Using verbal signs requires the ability to distinguish objects from other objects.

Statement 3
Distinguishing objects from other objects requires conceptual thought.

Thus
Language requires conceptual thought. Or conceptual thought is required for language.

(A) is the correct answer
(B) is backwards. Combining the second and third premise we can establish that conceptual thought is required for the use of verbal signs.
(C) is crazy. Sure it’s possible to think conceptually.
(D) is close. Some humans are capable of conceptual thought. We know that humans in general have conceptual thought, but that doesn’t mean that every human has conceptual thought. This attributes a characteristic of a group to each member of the group. Common LSAT fallacy.
(E) is not necessarily true. Maybe for some of the animals other than humans, vocal expression does require conceptual thought. The train of reasoning proves that the vocal expressions for humans require conceptual thought, not that humans are the only ones whose vocal expressions require conceptual thought.

[LSAT-Chang]

Hey Matt, quick question.
I picked (A) correctly inferring from my conditional diagram, but I didn't cross out (D) because the stimulus says "but only humans can ask..." and not "but not all humans can ask..." so I kind of inferred that statement to mean "all humans" since if we had a statement such as:

humans are capable of singing

then we would diagram this as "humans --> capable of singing" which means all humans are capable of singing, right?

so just looking at that statement and trying to infer it literally, I would get: "humans --> ask for an egg or an apple by naming it" which means all humans --> ask for an egg or an apple by naming it. Just in case you are curious to know why I didn't select (D) then, it was because I was thinking creatively (which I know I shouldn't have) about a case where we don't have a human that can ask for an egg or an apple by naming it (ie babies).

I can see that the statement "Many animals...but only humans...naming it" didn't even matter at all in the end -- so I guess (D) is wrong because there is no evidence in the stimulus that says "all humans are capable of conceptual thought"? The answer is linking wrong parts of the argument, right? If (D) had said "all humans can ask for an egg or an apple by naming it" would it be correct (given my explanation above)?

[timmydoeslsat]

The stimulus states "but only humans can ask for an apple or egg by naming it"

The word only introduces a necessary condition.

Ask for an apple of egg by naming it ---> Humans

We do not know that every human can do that.

[LSAT-Chang]

Hmm I may be wrong, but I thought "but only" would introduce a sufficient condition because of the word "but"? So like "if only" and "the only" = "but only"??

[timmydoeslsat]

"But only" does not give us a sufficient condition.

But only people who score 180s can go to Harvard.

That statement implies a requirement. It is saying that if you can go to Harvard, then you score 180.

We do not know what happens if you score 180. Perhaps your GPA is a train wreck. Perhaps robbing the neighborhood bank has caught up with you.

[LSAT-Chang]

I'm glad I asked!! I would have gotten this Q wrong if it required me to diagram and link up that sentence since I would have had it the other way around! phew! thanks!!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hmm I may be wrong, but I thought "but only" would introduce a sufficient condition because of the word "but"? So like "if only" and "the only" = "but only"??

Timmy has it exactly right, but let me add another thing... The organizing term is actually "only" alone. The word "but" is serving another purpose, and you'll want to be on the lookout for this!

Words like "yet," "but," "while," "even though," "however," "although," etc... typically introduce a turning point in an argument. Sometimes though, and this is true mostly on questions that are merely a set of facts, those words simply mean "and"! It's essentially a way of saying "and there's more!"

Hope that helps!

[joseph.m.kirby]

(D) commits the fallacy that Matt pointed out earlier in the thread.

From the stimulus, we know that:

(1) Only humans can ask for something by name (distinguish objects)
Distinguish --> human
A --> B

(2) Ability to distinguish requires conceptual thought
Distinguish --> conceptual thought
A --> C

(D) says "All humans are capable of conceptual thought"
From:
A-->B
A--->C

We cannot infer:
B --> C

This is flawed as the answer choice overlooks the possibility that some B may not be C (some humans may not be capable of conceptual thought.)

As an illustration for [A], [B] and [C]
All A are B
All A are C
However, as can be seen from below, not all B are C
[ B [ C [ A ] ] ]