Q23 - As a general rule, the larger a social

[chike_eze]

Correct (B)
Type: Resolve Paradox

The larger the social group of primates, the longer the amount of time the group spends grooming each other. And the main reason for grooming is maintaining social cohesion.

Furthermore, as the size of the neocortex increases, the social group of primates also increases. If so, why is it that Early Humans (with large neocortex) spent almost no time grooming each other?

Analysis: Why didn't those humans lick each other (or atleast scrub/wash each other) to a greater extent than lions, or Hyennas or monkeys? Well, if the main reason for grooming is social cohesion, then it is likely that these sophisticated humans found some other way to still achieve the same result.

(B) "Language is a more effective way of maintaining social cohesion" This explains the apparent paradox. If this is true, then these humans did not neccessarily need to groom each other obsessively. Because they found an even better way to maintain social cohesion.

(A) "Humans were more likely to groom themselves than other primates" -- This is not at issue. We are concerned about humans grooming other humans.
(C) "Less hair on humans, therefore less grooming". Even if this were true, it still does not explain why Humans did not groom each other more than other primates, given the argument in the stimuls
(D) "Humans lived large, hunted small" -- what does hunting have to do with it? irrelevant. This answer choice does not address the issue "Why these humans did not groom more"
(E) "Other primates, large neocortex, high grooming" -- this further widens the gap in the paradox. If this is true for other primates with large neocortex, then why not for humans?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great explanation Chike! You've become an old pro at this!!!

[isaac.botier]

Q23. (B)
Question Type: Explain a Result

For Explain a Result questions we want to:
1) identify the expected result
2) identify the unexpected result, and
3) keep in mind the following categories of answer choices:
(i) further evidence for the expected result
(ii) irrelevant to the discrepancy
(iii) explains the unexpected result (the right answer)

Our prompt is basically telling us that based on the fact that humans are primates with big neocortices (the plural of neocortex...according to google), we can infer that early human groups were quite large. Given that inference, we would expect them to spend a lot of time grooming one another to maintain social cohesion, since we’re told by the prompt:

"As a general rule, the larger a social group of primates, the more time its members spend grooming one another. The main purpose of this social grooming is to maintain social cohesion."

However, there is strong evidence that those humans "spent virtually no time grooming one another."

The expected result: early humans would spend a lot of time grooming one another in order to maintain social cohesion.

The unexpected result: early humans spent virtually no time grooming one another.

(A) at first seems pretty good. Maybe the unexpected result is because humans were better at self-grooming. However, we should be aware of the purpose of the grooming in the prompt. It isn’t to help out other primates who can’t groom on their own, but rather for the maintenance of social cohesion. So how are the humans maintaining social cohesion if they aren’t grooming one another?

(B) also seems pretty good at first. Again we’re given a reason why social grooming wouldn’t be as prevalent in humans. The reason it’s ultimately wrong is that it doesn’t address what humans did instead to maintain social cohesion. Remember, maintaining social cohesion is the main reason for social grooming.

(C) doesn’t even mention grooming, so we should be skeptical. It could be a tempting though since the first sentence of our prompt told us "the larger a group of primates, the more time its members spend grooming one another." So the fact that they hunted in small groups might lead some to think that the early humans did not have a large social group. However this answer choice starts with early humans living in large groups, so it doesn’t do a great job explaining the discrepancy.

(D) is further evidence for the expected result. (E) makes it seem even weirder that humans aren’t grooming one another. The other primates with fairly large neocortex regions are social grooming, why not the humans?

--

(E) explains the discrepancy for us. Early humans weren’t social grooming because they developed another way to maintain social cohesion _ by using language. Early humans were thus able to achieve their social cohesion goal while also respecting personal space issues. Win-win.

[zainrizvi]

C is a very tricky answer.

If humans weren't covered with as much as hair, then obviously their need for grooming and time spent grooming goes down. The only real flaw I see against this is that it doesn't do a good job explaining why humans spent "virtually no time". It accounts for a decrease, but not a complete reduction.

Complete reduction would need something stronger like B.

C by itself I think could be a valid answer if the conclusion was a bit weaker. And if B wasn't a more attractive answer choice.

[dhlim3]

^ It also came down to between B & C for me, but I ultimately crossed of C because if C was the answer then there is no reason for the parents to groom their children. I know that that is irrelevant to the core but it's a hint that weakens C.