GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 19 Nov 2018, 03:33

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### How to QUICKLY Solve GMAT Questions - GMAT Club Chat

November 20, 2018

November 20, 2018

09:00 AM PST

10:00 AM PST

The reward for signing up with the registration form and attending the chat is: 6 free examPAL quizzes to practice your new skills after the chat.
• ### The winning strategy for 700+ on the GMAT

November 20, 2018

November 20, 2018

06:00 PM EST

07:00 PM EST

What people who reach the high 700's do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we collected on over 50,000 students who used examPAL.

# Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 357
Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 25 Jul 2016, 23:59
1
20
00:00

Difficulty:

85% (hard)

Question Stats:

52% (01:57) correct 48% (02:24) wrong based on 537 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to reptiles, claiming that simple stimulus-response explanations of some reptiles behaviours, such as food gathering, cannot account for the complexity of such behaviour. But since experiments show that reptiles are incapable of making major alterations in their behaviour, for example, when faced with significant environment, these animals must be incapable of complex reasoning:

Which of the following is an assumption reqired by Slyvia's argument?

A. Animals could make major changes in their behaviour only if they were capable of complex reasoning
B. Simple stimulus-response explanations can in principle account for all reptile behaviours
C. Reptile behaviour appears more complex in the field than lab experiments reveal it to be
D. If reptiles were capable of complex reasoning, they would sometimes be able to make major changes in their behaviour
E. Complex reasoning and responses to stimuli cannot both contribute to the same behaviour

Originally posted by gk3.14 on 09 Dec 2006, 06:52.
Last edited by JarvisR on 25 Jul 2016, 23:59, edited 1 time in total.
Formatted the Q
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 41
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2006, 07:00
1
i go with D...

whts the OA?
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 357
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2006, 10:07
1
what not A?
SVP
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1529
Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2006, 10:12
1
I like A because it is more general and wishy-washy than D.

GMAT prefers a safe wishy-washy assumption for CR.
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 678
Location: Dallas, Texas
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2006, 21:24
1
If reptiles were capable of complex reasoning, they would sometimes be able to make major changes in their behaviour. As they are not doing that therefore they are unable to make complex reasoning.

(D)

A is more like an extreme generalization about animal reasoning with an "if only" condition.
_________________

"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

SVP
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1529
Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2006, 21:41
Swagatalakshmi wrote:
If reptiles were capable of complex reasoning, they would sometimes be able to make major changes in their behaviour. As they are not doing that therefore they are unable to make complex reasoning.

(D)

A is more like an extreme generalization about animal reasoning with an "if only" condition.

OK, fair point, but here is an explanation.

"since experiments show that reptiles are
incapable of making major alterations in their behaviour, for example, when faced with significant environment, these animals must be incapable of complex reasoning"

For the conclusion to be true, an animal that makes major alteration must be capable of complex reasoning. In other words, the ability to make major alteration should be determined only by the animal's complex reasoning ability and not any other ability.

If this is not true, then the conclusion falls apart because the inability to make major alteration can indicate another inability, not necesarily the lack of complex reasoning.

So, without A, the argument cannot stand. Hence A is the assumption.
Manager
Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 238
Location: California
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Dec 2006, 22:43
I agree with 'A' too.. I don't find A to be extreme...

D is just repeating what is said in the argument already in a negated fashion...

Argument: "But since experiments show that reptiles are incapable of making major alterations in their behaviour, for example, when faced with significant environment, these animals must be incapable of complex reasoning"

D. If reptiles were capable of complex reasoning, they would
sometimes be able to make major changes in their behavior

Assumption needs to be more generic to be able to applied to any other statement..
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 357
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2006, 07:56
Good discussion! I thought it was A too..

The OA however is D
Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 357
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2006, 08:10
This is what the OE says (which i disagree with)

If A were correct, it would force Sylvia in to a contradictory position. Sylvia states that reptiles engage in complex behaviour but are incapable of complex reasoning, directly contradicting Choice A.

The crux of the argument, in my opinion, is not that reptiles have complex behaviour but that they are unable to change it..
Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 678
Location: Dallas, Texas
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2006, 09:59
Let's argue a little more on this. This is my reasoning why D should be the answer.

A. Animals could make major changes in their behavior only if they
were capable of complex reasoning

This can be translated to : â€œP ONLY if Qâ€
_________________

"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

Senior Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2006
Posts: 357
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2006, 13:03
good argument swagatalakshmi..

I think where i differ is that I believe we are looking for a sufficient condition rather than a necessary one.

The argument implies that changes in behaviour is a sufficient condition to assume complex reasoning

In D: If complex reasoning-> sometimes be able to make major changes which means even if an animal does not make behavioural changes it could still have complex reasoning

To strenghten Sylvia's argument A seems the better bet
SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2128
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2006, 21:28
1
Quote:
since experiments show that reptiles are
incapable of making major alterations in their behaviour, for example, when faced with significant environment, these animals must be incapable of complex reasoning

Symbolize this sentence we get: Not M (Major Alterations) => Not C(Complex reasoning)

We know that not M => Not C is equivalent to C=>M
Translate this back we get: C (Complex reasoning) => M (Major alterations). In other words, "if animals are capable of complex reasoning, they would show major alterations (at least sometimes)."

A is wrong because M (Major Alterations) only if C (Complex reasoning) means M=>C, which is different from M if C or C=>M.

This is an excellent question. If you have some doubts about this question, I suggest you review the sticky thread "If X then Y, help on CR".
_________________

Keep on asking, and it will be given you;
keep on seeking, and you will find;
keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you.

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2128
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2006, 21:38
2
1
For example, "He hasn't taken his GMAT yet, it must be true that he isn't in a Bschool."

It would be equivalent to say "if he is in a Bschool he must have taken the GMAT".

Choice A would be equivalent to say "He has taken his GMAT only if he is in a Bschool". Which clearly may not be right because he may have taken GMAT and still not be in a bschool yet.
_________________

Keep on asking, and it will be given you;
keep on seeking, and you will find;
keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you.

Manager
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 103
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 03 Nov 2008, 20:02
1
gk3.14 wrote:
Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to reptiles,
claiming that simple stimulus-response explanations of some reptiles
behaviours, such as food gathering, cannot account for the complexity
of such behaviour. But since experiments show that reptiles are
incapable of making major alterations in their behaviour, for example, when faced with significant environment, these animals must be incapable of complex reasoning:

Which of the following is an assumption reqired by Slyvia's
argument?

A. Animals could make major changes in their behaviour only if they
were capable of complex reasoning
B. Simple stimulus-response explanations can in principle account
for all reptile behaviours
C. Reptile behaviour appears more complex in the field than lab
experiments reveal it to be
D. If reptiles were capable of complex reasoning, they would
sometimes be able to make major changes in their behaviour
E. Complex reasoning and responses to stimuli cannot both
contribute to the same behaviour

The ans is D. Here is why:

Concl: Reptiles must be incapable of Complex Reasoning
WHY?
Evidance: because reptile can't make Major Changes

So Sylvia assumes that to have Complex Reasoning reptile needs to be able to make Major Changes first.

this is a question of necessity: we ought to have X and then Y can happen.
in our case the necessity is the ability for Major Changes if we have that in place Complex Reasoning is possible.

What does A tell us? a complete opposite - we need CR to have MC!
if Complex Reasoning present => Major Changes are possible

What does D tell us?
if CR were possible reptiles would have to be able (i.e. need to) perform Major Changes (first).

OR

would have to be able (i.e. need to) perform Major Changes => CR is possible

Thus the ans is D

Originally posted by snaps on 24 Oct 2008, 10:45.
Last edited by snaps on 03 Nov 2008, 20:02, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 100
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Oct 2008, 12:32
1
(This is my first post. I teach LSAT, GMAT and GRE prep at Kaplan, and one of my students told me about GMATClub.)

Honghu's analysis is correct. This kind of question appears more often on the LSAT than the GMAT; it uses the formal logic concepts which Honghu explains.

The evidence is that reptiles are unable to make major alterations in their behaviour; the conclusion is that they are not capable of complex reasoning. As most posters have recognized, this reasoning assumes that IF an animal can't make major alterations in its behaviour, THEN it is not capable of complex reasoning.

This assumption is an "If X, then Y" statement, and so the principles of formal logic apply. Most importantly, knowing that "If X, then Y" absolutely does NOT prove "If NOT X, then NOT Y". And equally, knowing that "If NOT X, then NOT Y" does NOT prove "If X, then Y".

In this particular case, the assumption is what we just said: IF an animal canNOT make major alterations in its behaviour, THEN it is NOT capable of complex reasoning. The critical thing to understand is that this "if-then" statement does not tell us ANYTHING about what is true if an animal CAN make major alterations in its behaviour. If that is true, this statement does NOT tell us whether or not it is capable of complex reasoning. It might be, or it might not be: The statement simply doesn't give us any information about that situation.

Another way of describing what the assumption says is this: NOT being able to make major alterations in behaviour is SUFFICIENT to show that the animal is NOT capable of complex reasoning. But it is not NECESSARY: an animal could be NOT capable of complex reasoning while still being ABLE to make major alterations in behaviour.

That should explain why we the assumption "If it canNOT X, then it is NOT Y" absolutely does NOT mean "If it CAN X, then it IS Y". Equating these two statements is the oldest logical error known to civilization; the Romans called it the "pons asinorum". The GMAT uses it sometimes, and the LSAT uses it over and over and over again.

What CAN be equated to an "if-then" statement is the contrapositive of that statement:

Statement: If X, then Y
Contrapositive: If NOT Y, then NOT X

As Honghu says, "We know that not M => Not C is equivalent to C=>M." That's the contrapositive. To say the same thing a little more slowly: The assumption is "If it canNOT X, then it is NOT Y". The equivalent to this statement is "If it IS Y, then it CAN X" -- NOT, repeat not, "If it can X, then it is Y".

So the correct answer choice must say either "If it cannot X, then it is not Y" (the original assumption) or "If it is Y, then it can X" (the contrapositive, which is equivalent). Answer choice D provides the contrapositive, so it is correct.

Why is A wrong? Because of one word. At first glance, it SEEMS to say the same thing as D: If reptiles were capable of complex reasoning, then they could make changes in their behaviour. In reality, it does not say this at all. Why? Because instead of "if", the sentence contains "only if". For the purposes of logical reasoning, the phrase "only if" does NOT mean "if"; it actually means "then". So A actually says that if an animal can make alterations in its behaviour, THEN it must be capable of complex reasoning -- which is exactly what we canNOT conclude from the original assumption
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2645
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2016, 18:53
gk3.14 wrote:
Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to reptiles,
claiming that simple stimulus-response explanations of some reptiles
behaviours, such as food gathering, cannot account for the complexity
of such behaviour. But since experiments show that reptiles are
incapable of making major alterations in their behaviour, for example, when faced with significant environment, these animals must be incapable of complex reasoning:

Which of the following is an assumption reqired by Slyvia's
argument?

A. Animals could make major changes in their behaviour only if they
were capable of complex reasoning
B. Simple stimulus-response explanations can in principle account
for all reptile behaviours
C. Reptile behaviour appears more complex in the field than lab
experiments reveal it to be
D. If reptiles were capable of complex reasoning, they would
sometimes be able to make major changes in their behaviour
E. Complex reasoning and responses to stimuli cannot both
contribute to the same behaviour

A is too extreme, animals could make major changes even without complex reasoning
B irrelevant
C irrelevant
D aha! so if reptiles were capable of complex reasoning, then sometimes they would alter their behavior
E irrelevant.
Manager
Joined: 02 May 2015
Posts: 215
Location: South Africa
GPA: 3.49
WE: Web Development (Insurance)
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jun 2016, 05:03
gk3.14 wrote:
Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to reptiles,
claiming that simple stimulus-response explanations of some reptiles
behaviours, such as food gathering, cannot account for the complexity
of such behaviour. But since experiments show that reptiles are
incapable of making major alterations in their behaviour, for example, when faced with significant environment, these animals must be incapable of complex reasoning:

Which of the following is an assumption reqired by Slyvia's
argument?

A. Animals could make major changes in their behaviour only if they
were capable of complex reasoning
B. Simple stimulus-response explanations can in principle account
for all reptile behaviours
C. Reptile behaviour appears more complex in the field than lab
experiments reveal it to be
D. If reptiles were capable of complex reasoning, they would
sometimes be able to make major changes in their behaviour
E. Complex reasoning and responses to stimuli cannot both
contribute to the same behaviour

If C = complex reasoning and B is behavior change

Conclusion : Only if B exists then C exists.

Assumption : C can't exist without B happening

A says that :

Animals could make major changes in their behaviour only if they were capable of complex reasoning

essentially B is only because of C.

But this is opposite of we want. We want to prove that C is because of B. Not the other way round. This is a causation trap.

Whereas D says that :

If reptiles were capable of complex reasoning, they would sometimes be able to make major changes in their behaviour

So C would cause B

This is a wonderful GMAT trap. Whenever you are looking at cause and effect, be very careful about reversing their order.
_________________

Kudos if I helped

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3393
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2018, 06:12
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
Re: Sylvia: Some psychologists attribute complex reasoning to &nbs [#permalink] 23 Oct 2018, 06:12
Display posts from previous: Sort by