Logical reasoning PrepTest 126 · Section 4 · Question 14

Incorrect. f anything, this answer makes it possible that genetics is at the root of the behavior change by establishing that genetic change can happen over the time period mentioned in the stimulus. That would weaken the argument, so this answer can't serve as a necessary assumption.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Before 1963 — No macaques had ever been seen in a hot spring
1963 — An intrepid macaque goes in a hot spring to get food
Next few years — The entire troop went into the hot spring
By 1990 — The entire troop wintered in the hot spring (how fancy!)
Conclusion — Macaque monkeys can learn and teach behavior, not just follow what their genes tell them to do

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has an underlying concept that shows up frequently enough on the LSAT that it's worth mentioning—nature vs. nurture.

Here, the conclusion is that a certain observed phenomenon (the macaque monkeys spending time in the hot spring) is a result of nurture (teaching/learning) and not nature (their genetic heritage).

Why does it go with that? Because the behavior was something that a single monkey did in response to a desire for food, and then it spread to the rest of the group.

While that certainly seems to suggest that the behavior was learned, it never actually establishes that. Maybe the initial monkey went into the hot spring because of some ingrained genetic trait—monkeys are genetically driven to chase food into any location they see it. And, similarly, the other monkeys might have a genetic drive to follow in the steps of one of their troop—it's not learned through nurture, but rather a genetic/natural action.

Since this argument is assuming that this change in behavior is based in learned behavior and it doesn't have a genetic basis, the correct answer should establish that as true.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that there isn't necessarily a genetic basis for behavior changes that happen over the time period noted in the stimulus. If new patterns of behavior from over a few years/decades are determined by genes, then the conclusion that the macaque behavior was driven by learning instead of genes falls apart. This answer is therefore required for the argument to hold together and is correct.

Key Takeaway:
There are certain topics or underlying concepts that repeat on the LSAT, generally dealing with the same ideas. The nature vs. nurture debate frequently shows up, generally with arguments picking" one over the other. Knowing this can make it a lot easier to frame questions dealing with it!

Incorrect. In the stimulus, the behavior in question did become typical. This answer would suggest that it's therefore potentially genetic in nature, running at odds with the conclusion.

Incorrect. There are two issues with this answer. First, only the behavior in question needs to have a social explanation instead of a genetic one for the argument to work, not all behaviors. Second, the stimulus concludes that the monkeys aren't complete captives" of their genes—so genes could play some role in what happened, as long as there was also a nurture element.

Incorrect. The behavior already seems to have persisted for a couple generations, so there's no need for it to continue. Additionally, even if it doesn't, it could still have a learned/nurture element to it—in fact, if it subsides, that might be evidence that it was learned instead of genetic!