Cognitive scientist: Using the pioneering work of comparative psycholo

Yes. We don't need any assumption involving "all" animals. We noticed something about most animals (that were involved in the study which may be a small subset of all animals) - that they reacted in one way. Great apes reacted in another way and based on that we are inferring something about great apes. So there is no assumption made about "all animals".
_________________

How will the negation test work on option C] ?

The negation test can be a bit messy and difficult to apply with accuracy. Another way to think about assumption questions like this is to find out which answer choice MUST be true in order for the argument to hold up.

So, does (C) absolutely HAVE to be true for the scientist to reach his/her conclusion?

In the passage, we learn that "in the case of the great apes, repeated exposure to mirrors leads to self-directed behaviors, such as exploring the inside of the mouth, suggesting that these animals recognize the reflection as an image of self."

From this, we know that the apes didn't immediately recognize the reflection as an image of self -- it took repeated exposures to get to that point.

But what happened in the initial exposures, BEFORE the apes recognized themselves in the mirror? We don't know -- it's possible that they just sat there and looked, or it's possible that they showed social behaviors. The fact that they might have showed social behaviors doesn't mean that they're not self-aware. They just needed repeated exposures to get to the point where they showed self-awareness.

So, (C) doesn't have to be true for the argument to hold up, and thus the argument doesn't make this assumption.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi,

I take quiet long to analysing answer choices.

Can anyone suggest
how can I improve my reasoning and timing?

Hi Ahmed9955,

Suggestions to improve reasoning & timing:
1) When practicing questions try to find 4 wrong answers. Don't jump to review solutions immediately. Find exactly why an answer choice is wrong. If you have a study partner try explaining why each choice is wrong. This way you will slowly build the reasoning skills. Prefer official questions to solve.
2) Try to eliminate each incorrect option at a time, you should have a solid basis to reject an option. You can write down the Alphabets A to E and slash each option as you eliminate. If you have doubt then underline it for reviewing it later or till you find a better option. Even if you find a suitable correct answer, try to eliminate all remaining options on the basis of solid reasoning.

As you practice more your reasoning and timing will slowly increase. Once you reach a good accuracy level you can start timed practice sessions.

Hope this is helpful.

Thanks & Regards,
Dreamknight

Thanks.. !!

Hi avigutman - i have not seen the answer choices nor any expert opinion. Just wanted to go over my undersatnding of the argument [if my understanding was even right to begin with !]

(i) Reading the the conclusion of the argument


The word "unique" threw me off a bit

When I read the blue, specifically the underlined unique - i thought of the conclusion as this -->
(1) apes have self-awareness of 8/10
(2) other animals (That show social behavior, such as aggression) have a self -awareness of 5/10 only

The conclusion is NOT SAYING, other animals (That show social behavior, such as aggression) DONT HAVE ANY self-awareness.

It doesnt make sense to think of animals (lions, dogs, tigers) as having ZERO self awareness. I just thought of it as "apes have better self awareness compared to lions or dogs"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii)

Because I thought other animals (That show social behavior in front of a mirror) DO HAVE SOME self-awareness [just not as UNIQUE as do apes)

I got the impression that

-- Capability to recognize reflection in mirror is one among multiple ways to achieve self-awareness

I dont think the argument claims, the capability of recognizing reflection in the mirror is the ONLY WAY to achieve self-awareness

Below is kind of a visualization of what i meant of the MULTIPLE WAYS to achieve self-awareness
-- MSR (Mirror Self Reflection) is SUFFICIENT but not necessary
-- There are other (albeit not unique) ways to showcase "Self awareness"

Hi avigutman – thank you so much for responding



Unique as adjective definition: being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else

JD : if you think of unique as “unlike anything else”
- The apes certainly a capacity for self-awareness unlike anything else among non-human species.

Are we really expected to believe that "other animals" have ZERO CAPACITY for self-awareness?

IMO, no - I don’t think you can infer that.

Analogy: Jane has a capacity for flexibility, unique among ballerinas



------------------------------------------

Regarding verb for self-awareness: achieve or showcase.

Don’t want to focus too much on point (ii) above

What I mention in (ii) is almost a secondary FYI (as I immersed myself in the argument)

Bottom line : MSR is sufficient but not necessary for self-awareness

Given MSR is not necessary for self-awareness , logically there could be other ways for self awareness

The diagram above illustrates some other ways (I agree that these others way are not mentioned in the argument and are frankly a secondary moot point almost)

We're not expected to believe that other animals have zero capacity for self-awareness, jabhatta2, but we are expected to believe that the author believes that other animals have zero capacity for self awareness. That is exactly what the author is arguing for, per the definition of the word "unique." If you think the author is jumping to their conclusion with insufficient evidence, and perhaps making assumptions, well, you're right. Every GMAT argument does that!
_________________

Hi avigutman - is the structure of (B), a structure of a contra-positive ?

Contrapositive : If not (Y), not (x)

Contrapositives can be re-phrased as - If (X), (Y)

option (B)


if not (MSR), no (self-awareness)

hence option (b) can be-rephrased to say : Self Awareness IMPLIES MSR

But the direction is wrong :

From the argument, the argument is claiming the other way -- : MSR implies Self awareness

thoughts ?

The argument assumes both directions, jabhatta2.
The phrase "unique among nonhuman species" in the conclusion assumes answer choice (B), and the part of the conclusion that says "The implication of these studies is that the great apes have a capacity for self-awareness" assumes the direction that you identified.
_________________

Gallup’s Great Apes

Step 1: Identify the Question
The word assumption in the question stem indicates that this is an Assumption question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument
most animals no MSR
great apes MSR
© great apes self-aware (unique)
The author uses the fact that great apes are the only non-human species to show mirror self-recognition to conclude that great apes are unique in their capacity for self awareness.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal
On Assumption questions, the goal is to find something the author must believe is true for the conclusion to be valid.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right
(A) This answer choice is too specific. It is not necessary that Gallup himself established that great apes are unique; any scientist could make the discovery. Additionally, this choice does nothing to bridge the gap between MSR and self-awareness.




(B) CORRECT. The cognitive scientist is directly linking great apes’ capacity for MSR with their capacity for self-awareness. She assumes that those animals that don’t exhibit MSR are not self aware. Therefore, she must be assuming that if an animal cannot exhibit a capacity for MSR, then it cannot be self aware. Check this with the negation test. Negate the answer choice as follows: If an animal does not have the capacity for MSR, it does have the capacity for self-awareness. In that case, the great apes are not necessarily unique. The animals that don’t have the ability to perform MSR could be self aware, and the argument doesn’t make sense.

(C) The two behaviors are never discussed as mutually exclusive. In fact, the great apes show self-awareness only after repeated exposure to mirrors, implying they may initially exhibit social behavior.
(D) This answer is too extreme. The scientist is looking for MSR, dismissing any other behavior. It doesn’t matter to the argument whether there are other types of behavior besides social behavior and self-directed behavior
(E) If this answer were true, the animals that the scientist dismissed because they couldn’t exhibit a capacity for MSR might actually have self-awareness. The great apes would no longer be unique, and the

Thx so much avigutman -

If i understand, what you are saying is the following

simplified argument :



(m) Necessary assumption : mirror self-recognition (MSR) implies self-awareness
(n) Necessary assumption : Self awareness implies mirror self-recognition (MSR)

I personally dont think (n) is necessary, even though i concluded
- (i) apes are the only animals with Self awareness
- (ii) other animals have no Self awareness

Thoughts ?
------------------------------------------------------------

ii)

Background :

(I) Condition : If (x), then (Y)

(II) Converse : If (Y), then (x)

Now, (I) and (II) are NOT the same statements

Question -
In most arguments I have seen -- (I) is necessary and (II) is not necessary or vice-verse.

Both (I) and (II) are not necessary at the same time.

Is this a special type of argument where (I) and (II) are **BOTH** necessary at the same time ?

Could you perhaps give some simpler examples in which (I) and (II) are both necessary

I always thought (I) and (II) were MECE (why ? well, because (I) and (II) are not equivalent logical statements)

------------------------------------------------------------

That's right, jabhatta2. (I) and (II) are not equivalent logical statements. Nevertheless, they are both required. This argument requires multiple assumptions (as do most GMAT arguments). If you've ever seen the phrase "if and only if", that's a phrase used to signify that both directions of a conditional statement are needed. So, for this argument, we can say that the author's conclusion requires the following assumptions:
(i) Non-human species have a capacity for MSR if and only if they have a capacity for self-awareness.
(ii) All non-human species whose capacity for MSR hasn't been investigated have no capacity for MSR.



jabhatta2 Do you see that this claim: "The great apes are the only non-human species with a capacity for MSR, therefore the great apes are the only non-human species with a capacity for self awareness" requires the assumption that "If a non-human has a capacity for self-awareness, then they have a capacity for MSR"?
_________________

notes for JD only - no need to respond

• This type of argument is a special type of argument, called if and only if
• If and Only IF arguments are bi-conditional in nature [ A <--> B]
• The argument is saying that BOTH A --> B and B --> A
• If and only if statements, are very powerful as they are essentially saying that p and q are interchangeable statements. When one is true, you automatically know the other is true as well. Also, when one is false, the other must also be false.

examples of bi-conditional arguments

what if other animal have self-awareness (except apes). this experiment only show most animal (more than 50 % animal) respond self-awareness if they exposed to them MSR.
the answer choices says.. .Answer choices (b) said that if an animal( any animal) not have capacity For MSR, it does not have the capacity for self-awareness. does any animal includes the most animal or not? nd how can the author, cognitive scientist , is assuming such horrible mistake error? or am I thinking horrible way? how can the author say any animal ( any animal includes the most animals , most animal are exposed the MSR, showing the self-awareness) , if the author said some animal that would be good ideas, is not it?

when the author first introduced general concept ,"Most animals exposed to a mirror respond only with social behavior, such as aggression", and he has gone to specific specific concept. "in the case of the great apes, repeated exposure to mirrors leads to self-directed behaviors, such as exploring the inside of the mouth, suggesting that these animals recognize the reflection as an image of self" and last he concludes his point by using specific concept.. What I am assuming that there must be something assuming that fills the gap between specific examples and conclusion. But, the answer is again general view. what's is going on here? Can anyone, Gmat expert, shed some light on my thinking? I can't stop thinking anymore this problem.

In a way, the conclusion is actually general.

To see why, let's consider the conclusion carefully:

The implication of these studies is that the great apes have a capacity for self-awareness unique among nonhuman species.

If you think about it, that conclusion implies the following:

Nonhuman species other than great apes IN GENERAL do not have a capacity for self-awareness.

So, in arriving a that conclusion, the author is assuming something about nonhuman species other than great apes in general, which is the following:

B. If an animal does not have the capacity for MSR, it does not have the capacity for self-awareness.
_________________

Can GMATNinja or ChiranjeevSingh or Anish Passi take a stab at this one please ?