Commentator: Human behavior cannot be fully understood without inquiri

Question

Commentator: Human behavior cannot be fully understood without inquiring into nonphysical aspects of persons. As evidence of this, I submit the following: suppose that we had a complete scientific account of the physical aspects of some particular human action—every neurological, physiological, and environmental event involved. Even with all that we would obviously still not truly comprehend the action or know why it occurred.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument’s reasoning?

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the argument’s reasoning?

(A) No support is offered for its conclusion other than an analogy that relates only superficially to the issue at hand.

(B) The purported evidence that it cites in support of its conclusion presumes that the conclusion is true.

(C) It concludes that a proposition must be true merely on the grounds that it has not been proven false.

(D) It fails to indicate whether the speaker is aware of any evidence that could undermine the conclusion.

(E) It presumes, without providing justification, that science can provide a complete account of any physical phenomenon.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

The commentator’s conclusion is his first sentence. The rest of the argument pretends to support that conclusion, but does so extremely poorly. The last sentence seems to basically just restate the first sentence. I think this argument is circular, and it simply doesn’t hold water. You can’t use your conclusion as the only evidence to support that same conclusion. An example: “Hulk Hogan is the best pro wrestler because he is the best at pro wrestling.” Huh? This makes no sense.

The question asks us to identify a flaw in the argument, so I think “the argument is circular” or “the argument assumes its conclusion” would be a great answer.

A) I don't see an analogy here. And anyway, I don’t think “superficiality” is the real problem. I think it’s circularity. So I’m hoping one of the other answer choices will say that.

B) Boom. The argument assumes (or presumes, same thing) that its conclusion is true. That’s a circular argument.

C) This is certainly a flaw. Disproof of an argument does not prove the opposite of the argument’s conclusion. This would be the answer if the argument had said, “You haven’t proven God doesn’t exist, therefore God must exist.” But that’s not what the argument did.

D) What? No way. I don’t think this could ever be the answer, actually. I can make a logically valid argument without being required to acknowledge that I am aware of evidence that could undermine my conclusion.

E) The argument simply doesn’t do this.

Our answer is B

100mitra · Answer

Correct option B 
Pharaphasing 
Commentator: 
  Conclusion   :  Human behavior cannot be fully understood without inquiring into nonphysical aspects of persons . 
  Supporting Evidance Premise   : As evidence of this, I submit the following: suppose that  we had a complete scientific account of the physical aspects of some particular human action  — every neurological, physiological, and environmental event involved. 
  Argument    : Even with all that we would obviously still not truly comprehend the action or know why it occurred

flaw in the argument’s reasoning ?

(A)  No support  is offered for  its conclusion  other than an analogy that relates only  superficially  to the issue at hand
 Flaw  : In passage, Conclusion and its supporting evidance both are provided, word superficially and analogy has not corelation or comparasion, this stem actually could be irrelavnt.

(B) The  purported evidence  that it cites  in support of its conclusion  presumes that the  conclusion is true .
 Correct

(C) It  concludes  that  a proposition  must be  true  merely on the grounds that it has  not been proven false.   - Wrong

(D) It  fails to indicate  whether the  speaker  is aware of any evidence that  could undermine  the conclusion. -  Wrong  - Irrelavant

(E)  It presumes , without providing justification, that science can provide a complete account of any physical  phenomenon  -  Wrong,  its completely opposite of option E refer to passage

IanStewart · Answer

This argument is an example of "begging the question" (not in the colloquial sense of "raising the question" but in its true meaning in logic), or of "circular reasoning". The argument says, paraphrasing:

"If we knew every physical detail of a human action, we obviously would not understand it completely. Therefore knowing physical details alone will not let us completely understand a human action."

Rather than provide any evidence that might support the conclusion, the argument's "evidence" just rephrases the conclusion slightly. That's circular reasoning, when an argument assumes what it's trying to prove. Answer B describes the logical error.

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

(A) No support is offered for its conclusion other than an analogy that relates only superficially to the issue at hand.
There is no analogy used in the first place , the sentence is merely stating facts and findings that is not properly understood therefore out

(B) The purported evidence that it cites in support of its conclusion presumes that the conclusion is true.
This is the intended reasoning since the outcome of the test results is not taken into account and is explicitly stated therefore let us hang on to it

(C) It concludes that a proposition must be true merely on the grounds that it has not been proven false.
The proposition cannot be predicted perfectly is the problem not the authenticity of the same therefore out

(D) It fails to indicate whether the speaker is aware of any evidence that could undermine the conclusion.
The speaker is well aware of all the nuances and working of the experiment therefore out

(E) It presumes, without providing justification, that science can provide a complete account of any physical phenomenon.
The setence just states the oppposite that science even with all the minute detalis in place xannot accurately decide therefore out

Therefore IMO B

sivatx2 · Answer

(A) No support is offered for its conclusion other than an analogy that relates only superficially to the issue at hand. 
 This is false, as there was no comparison made in the argument. Eliminate.

(B) The purported evidence that it cites in support of its conclusion presumes that the conclusion is true. 
 This is true, and clearly exposes the flaw of circular reasoning. Keep.

(C) It concludes that a proposition must be true merely on the grounds that it has not been proven false. 
 Argument did not considered proving the proposition to be false. Hence this is false statement and eliminate.

(D) It fails to indicate whether the speaker is aware of any evidence that could undermine the conclusion. 
 The statement is true, but this does not expose the flaw in the argument. Eliminate

(E) It presumes, without providing justification, that science can provide a complete account of any physical phenomenon. 
 This is false as the argument did not presumed this. Eliminate

So the answer choice is B

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Commentator: Human behavior cannot be fully understood without inquiri

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Commentator: Human behavior cannot be fully understood without inquiri

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards