Logical reasoning PrepTest 136 · Section 4 · Question 22

Incorrect. While we can't conclude for sure that the impact of the barking determines the motive behind it, the two are certainly compatible. We can't conclude that the sentinels are barking to warn the other meerkats, but they certainly could be.

Incorrect. The argument uses a premise about the effect of an action to determine its motive—since those are different things, this argument isn't circular.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Meerkat sentinels - Look out for predators; almost never get caught
Meerkat foragers - Get food; often get caught by predators
The sentinels bark as they dash for safety, and this warns others of danger, so this behavior is altruistic.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion of this argument brings up a term that frequently shows up as the relevant feature of a flawed argument—"motivated." The motives of an individual (here, the sentinel meerkats) aren't determined by the action taken or the outcome of that action. After all, someone could take an action that works against their motivation, and an unexpected outcome could similarly run counter to a motive. When an argument talks about motives, you should check to see if it's assuming motive based on action or outcome.

Here, since the motivations are being ascribed to meerkats, they're almost certainly being assumed based on action or outcome—after all, we can't ask a meerkat why it did what it did! In this case, it's basing the conclusion about motive on the outcome of the action. The barking warned other meerkats of a predator about, so it must have been done to warn the others.

This argument, therefore, concludes motive based on outcome, which is an error in reasoning, and the correct answer should highlight this shift.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the shift from a discussion of the impact/effect of an action to a conclusion about the motivation behind that behavior, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Look out for a discussion of motive in an LSAT argument. Arguments frequently jump between motive, action, and outcome, but none of them prove the others, and so any such jump is an error in reasoning.

Incorrect. The conclusion is that the sentinel's behavior is "at least in part" altruistic, so this answer doesn't properly reflect the conclusion.

Incorrect. While the stimulus does arguably say that a claim is false, it does so based on positive evidence of the motives of sentinels, not a failure of an opposing point to establish their conclusion (absence of evidence flaw).