Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 4 · Question 11

Incorrect. The stimulus establishes that apes have learned human language, so this answer is contradicted.

Incorrect. First, this answer doesn't establish that the apes can't have philosophical thoughts, since it's never established that human language is necessary for philosophical thought. Second, since it doesn't establish that human language is necessary for philosophical thought, it also doesn't establish that other animals don't have such thoughts!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Non-human to learn human language → Ape
Ape → not Used human language to express philosophical thought
Therefore - not Human → Philosophical thought

Answer Anticipation:
Conditional logic is common in Strengthen with Sufficient Premise, and when it appears, we generally want to diagram everything out, chain it together, and see what's missing. We can also look to the conclusion to see if there's a new concept there, and then we can figure out what it needs to be connected to to justify that conclusion.

However, the conditional logic here is messy, so let's focus on the latter strategy and see if we can shortcut our way to an anticipation without needing to figure out how these statements chain together, since they include similar but not identical concepts.

The conclusion says that philosophical thought is unique to humans. Or, rephrased, non-humans don't engage in philosophical thought. While the premises do discuss non-humans, they don't discuss philosophical thought.

They do discuss a related concept, though—the expression of philosophical thought in human language. And we learn that no non-human animals have ever done so. Since these two terms are closely related but not the same, and they're both connected to non-human animals, the argument must be assuming that they're equivalent. Since they're not, we should look for an answer that establishes that connection:
If an animal hasn't expressed philosophical thought in human language, then it hasn't had philosophical thoughts.

Answer Explanation:
This answer skips over discussing animals, but it provides the connection in our anticipation. Of all animals, only apes have learned human language, so non-apes can't have philosophical thought since there's no other way to express it. And apes have never expressed philosophical thought in human language, so this answer guarantees they don't have other means of expressing it. Since it rules out philosophical thought for all non-human animals, this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
When the conditional logic in a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise question is messy and doesn't easily chain together, start by identifying new concepts in the conclusion and seeing if you can find a similar but distinct concept that the argument is assuming means the same thing. The correct answer will most likely establish that connection.

Incorrect. The relative ease of these two things is out of scope, and this answer also fails to establish human language as the only channel for philosophical thought.

Incorrect. Similar to (D), the relative difficulty of various tasks is out of scope. An animal may be able to do one thing and not another despite the former being more difficult.