Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 3 · Question 2

Incorrect. This answer is the illegal reversal answer, but, again, the argument doesn't reverse the logic. In fact, the argument doesn't bring up anything that is necessary for the development of language.

Incorrect. The argument does assume that the development of language has a cause, but it doesn't treat that cause as being unique to language. It's possible that other things developed to facilitate the domestication of animals.

Incorrect. Close! However, the answer doesn't treat the development of language as being caused by the development of animal domestication. Instead, it concludes that language developed to facilitate that domestication.

Incorrect. This isn't a circular argument as the conclusion brings up a new type of relationship not mentioned in the premises.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Domestication → Cooperative activity
Cooperative activity → Sophisticated communication
Language is sophisticated communication
Therefore Ð Language likely developed for animal domestication

Answer Anticipation:
This argument features two conditional statements that chain together, but—interestingly for an Errors in Reasoning question—it doesn't commit an illegal reversal or negation. Sure, the stimulus does establish the necessary condition as a premise, but it doesn't reach a conclusion stating the sufficient condition of the chain (that animals are domesticated).

Rather, it reaches a causal conclusion. In that conclusion, it states that the domestication of animals was a primary factor in the development of language. Bring up a factor in something's development is causal in nature, and so this argument jumps from a correlation (conditional statements are correlative by nature) to a causal statement. Let's find an answer reflecting that jump.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the jump between something being established as true about language, to drawing a conclusion that it developed for a specific reason. Language serves the purpose of allowing for the domestication of animals, and the argument therefore concludes that it developed for that purpose. It's possible that something else caused language to develop, and it just happened to also help with the domestication of animals.

Key Takeaway:
Conditional logic is correlative in nature. Using it to justify causality will lead to a correlation/causation flaw!