Humans are supposedly rational: in other words, they have a capacity f

Question

Humans are supposedly rational: in other words, they have a capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior. This is supposedly the difference that makes them superior to other animals. But humans knowingly pollute the world’s precious air and water and, through bad farming practices, deplete the soil that feeds them. Thus, humans are not rational after all, so it is absurd to regard them as superior to other animals.

The reasoning above is flawed in that it

(A) relies crucially on an internally contradictory definition of rationality
(B) takes for granted that humans are aware that their acts are irrational
(C) neglects to show that the irrational acts perpetrated by humans are not also perpetrated by other animals
(D) presumes, without offering justification, that humans are no worse than other animals
(E) fails to recognize that humans may possess a capacity without displaying it in a given activity

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

We’re asked to identify a flaw in the argument. So we need to find something that 1) actually happened in the argument, and 2) the makers of the test would consider a “flaw.” Normally, I would try to predict the answer here. How about, “It’s possible for me to rationally pollute the environment. I don’t have kids, I don’t even like kids (I most definitely don’t give a **** about your kids) so why  shouldn’t  I pollute, if the pollution isn’t going to matter until long after I’m dead?”

It turns out that that’s not actually the answer, unfortunately. (The test makers would never permit such an anti-environmental answer; they’re all a bunch of progressive academics. And I don’t actually hate the environment, by the way. Kids? That’s a different story.)

A) No, the argument doesn’t present two incompatible definitions of rationality. Since the argument doesn’t even  do  this, it can’t possibly be the correct answer.

B) Awareness is not a part of the argument. So again, the argument doesn’t actually do this. Therefore it can’t be the answer.

C) Humans could still be irrational, even if other animals were also irrational. So this isn’t it.

D) The argument doesn’t presume that humans are no worse than other animals. The argument attempts to lay out a case, with evidence and logic, that humans are no better than other animals.

E) I hate this answer, but it’s the best of a bad lot. The argument  does  seem to assume that if humans act irrationally in any given instance, then they must not possess rationality. But can’t humans be rational, and sometimes have a blind spot? I never would have predicted this answer, but the argument does, in a way, say, “For a basketball player to be a Hall of Famer, he has to have a capacity for dominating his opposition. But LeBron James, supposedly a certain Hall of Famer, got his ass kicked in the playoffs this year. Therefore LeBron is not a Hall of Famer after all.” The problem with this is that LeBron certainly does have dominance, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to win every single game. A through D all sucked, and we’ve been able to make a case for E.

So E is our answer.

sherxon · Answer

Conclusion: Humans are not rational, so they are not superior
Premise: they act irrationally in a few cases

The assumption of this argument: a rational being should always act rationally. if it does not act rationally even in one case, then it cannot be considered rational

Answer choice E notices the flaw (assumption)
(E) fails to recognize that humans may possess a capacity without displaying it in a given activity

IMO E

unraveled · Answer

Humans are supposedly rational: in other words, they have a capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior. This is supposedly the difference that makes them superior to other animals. But humans knowingly pollute the world’s precious air and water and, through bad farming practices, deplete the soil that feeds them. Thus, humans are not rational after all, so it is absurd to regard them as superior to other animals.

The reasoning above is flawed in that it

(A) relies crucially on an internally  contradictory definition of rationality  - WRONG. What definition? There is none on offering. 
(B) takes for  granted  that humans are aware that their  acts are irrational  - WRONG. Goes in a direction irrelevant to passage. More so it is about rationality than irrationality.
(C) neglects to show that the irrational acts perpetrated by humans are  not also perpetrated by other animals  - WRONG. Other animals whether affect or not human rationality is irrelevant. In fact, no being affected by any animals'act makes human superior. So, this choice is irrelevant.
(D)  presumes, without offering justification , that humans are no worse than other animals - WRONG. Neither there's any presumption nor there is no justification. 
(E) fails to recognize that humans may possess a capacity  without displaying it in a given activity  - CORRECT. The best of the lot and POE indeed helps.

Answer E.

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.

Humans are supposedly rational: in other words, they have a capacity f

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

Humans are supposedly rational: in other words, they have a capacity f

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