I am completely stuck on this. I have no idea why the answer is (A). Anyone can help me sort through the logic in this?

Thanks!

This is a great argument. Tough answer choice to recognize without a good analysis of the argument itself. A little skill at negating assumption choices wouldn't hurt, either.

Premises:
1. ppl who unconsciously inhibit have increased heart rates in emotional situations
2. ppl who consciously inhibit have increased heart rates in emotional situations

Conclusion:
the act of inhibiting (conscious or unconscious) causes increased heart rates

Take a second to consider this! Is that the conclusion you expected? That the act of inhibiting is what caused the heart rates to rise? Wouldn't one expect the conclusion to say that emotional situations cause heart rates to rise?

Now, consider what an assumption is. It is something REQUIRED by the argument if the conclusion is to be drawn. So, if we want to draw the conclusion that the act of inhibiting is what causes the heart rates to rise for both groups of people, what must be true?

It must be true that something else isn't causing one of the groups' heart rates to rise.

This is what (A) says -- the increase wasn't caused by something else! (the emotional encounter itself).

Try negating (A). Take out the "not." What if encountering the situation is enough to make the heart rates of one of the groups to rise? Then the conclusion that the causal agent is the act of repressing suddenly becomes doubtful. Thus, this must be our assumption.

As for the wrong answers:

(B) is about the relative ability of these groups to inhibit certain emotional displays. Fascinating, but out of scope. We need to know about the heart rate!

(C) is about excitement - out of scope.

(D) isn't even addressing the groups we're discussing. Who are these emotional people? Do they inhibit?

(E) is about situations that do NOT provoke emotions - that's not what this argument is about.

_________________
Every once in awhile I host a free online workshop/question&answer session. called Zen and the Art of LSAT You can check out a few recordings from past sessions here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/zen-and-the-art.cfm

Can anybody articulate the reason why (E) is wrong?

thank you.

The rising of heart rate is relative, not absolute.

for example,
normally,
group 1 = 80 beats/min.
group 2 = 60 beats/min.

after acting of inhibiting,
group 1 = 110 beats/min.
group 2 = 120 beats/min.

It still matches the conclusion--both groups have sharp rises.

Hi,

Is it correct in understanding the stimulus as saying:

Encountering emotion provoking situations causes repressors and nonrepressors to inhibit their emotions which then causes significant increases in heart rate?

If so, couldn't this be diagrammed as saying

A -> B -> C

The answer (A) says ~A -> C

Though I see how this could be true, I don't see how this is necessary for the argument.

If we were to negate (A) and say emotion-provoking situations are sufficient, couldn't that also mesh with the argument? since emotion provoking situations are sufficient to cause repressors/nonrepressors to inhibit emotions which would then be sufficient to cause increased heart rate.

Sort of: A -> C
which could be understood in light of A -> B -> C

Please explain. Thank you in advance

I don't see this as the stimulus' argument. Not sure if you're reading our LR guide, but you need to find the core of the argument, a conclusion and the premise (or premises) that support it. Trying to turn everything into formal conditional logic will hurt you a lot more than it will help you. In this case, you've actually added in relationships into the argument.

Take a look at Brian's discussion above after you've thought about that. Tell me if you have any questions after digesting that.

Good luck!