Logical Reasoning

PT10 · S4 · Q14 In a learning experiment

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

In a learning experiment a researcher ran rats through a maze.

Conclusion (concluded)

Kinesthesia is sufficient for maze-learning.

Evidence

All rats could learn to run through a maze, in a similar amount of time, whether they were blind, deaf, lacked smell, or had no sensory deficiencies.

Kinesthesia had never been shown to be irrelevant to maze-learning (whereas sense of taste / sense of touch / sense of irony / sense of humor had all been shown to be irrelevant).

Evaluate

The conclusion is wicked strong. All you need to learn a maze is kinesthesia? You don't need sight or sound or smell?

Anything besides sight / sound / smell has already been shown to be irrelevant to maze-learning, so we know all other senses are irrelevant.

But how do we know that sight, sound, and smell are irrelevant?

Well, the author is thinking,

So, let's try to argue the Anti-Conclusion.

Given that ... rats without sight could get though / rats without smell could get through / rats without sound could get through, and given that all other senses besides kinesthesia have been shown to be irrelevant to getting through a maze.

How can we still argue that .... you do need more than just kinesthesia to get through a maze?

It's reasonable for us to just be stumped at this point, but that is still a constructive tension. By taking this tension to the answers, we will potentially have the answer whispered in our ear by the correct answer.

But we may think to ourselves,

.

.

In order to test whether kinesthesia is enough on its own, you would need a rat that is blind, deaf, and lacks a sense of smell.

Goal

Let's look for an answer saying the conclusion is too strong. It's possible the rats were combining kinesthesia with the two other senses they did have. The correct experiment was not performed / the correct evidence not provided.

p.s. If you want to see a very similar problem, check out this one.

14.

The researcher’s reasoning is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?

  1. The small differences in proficiency

    Irrelevant Objection: small differences

    This answer is referencing the language that no matter which sensory deficiency the rat had, it solved the maze "in much the same amount of time". This answer seems to think we should be worried about any slight variations in time as a difference in proficiency. But is the argument talking at all about what it takes for a rat to solve a maze the fastest, or the most efficiently? No, it's just talking about whether or not the rat can learn the maze. Whether it takes an extra minute, an extra hour, an extra day doesn't really matter. None of those would impact the author's claim that "kinesthesia is all a rat needs to learn a maze".

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    The possibility that the interaction

    Why this is right

    The fact that a blind rat, a deaf rat, and a rat without smell can each learn to solve the maze is making the author think that sight, sound, and smell are irrelevant to maze-learning. Thus, she interprets these rats' ability to still learn the maze as coming purely from kinesthesia. But as we reasoned earlier, an Alternate Explanation for how the blind rats learned the maze is that they combined kinesthesia with sound and smell. An Alternate Explanation for how the deaf rats learned the maze is that they combined kinesthesia with sight and smell. Since we can't rule out the idea that the rats learned the maze through the interaction of kinesthesia with at least one other sense, we can't conclude that kinesthesia on its own is sufficient to learn a maze.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    68% picked this

  3. It can be determined from

    Irrelevant Objection: how it takes place

    First of all, we cannot determine from this data that rats who are deprived of one of their senses become more reliant on kinesthesia. But even if we could, we can't complain about this argument by saying, "Fine, maybe kinesthesia really is how they're learning the maze; but you haven't explained how biologically they are becoming more reliant on kinesthesia." An lawyer concluding that "Paul is a Yankees fan" wins her case if it can be shown that Paul is a Yankees fan. The lawyer has no burden to tell the backstory of how Paul became a Yankees fan. Doing so could certainly add a lot of plausibility to her case, but it's not required. She could convince a courtroom that he presently is a Yankees fan without necessarily knowing the nitty-gritty of what got him there. Similarly, this researcher could accurately conclude "kinesthesia by itself is enough to learn a maze", even if they still didn't know how kinesthesia worked or how it became augmented as a sense when other senses were deficient.

    7% picked this

  4. It can be determined from

    Concedes the Conclusion

    The first half of this answer choice concedes the conclusion. As opposing counsel, we can't let this lawyer convince us her conclusion is true. There will never be a correct objection that says, "Sure, your conclusion is correct, but what you did get wrong is ."

    13% picked this

  5. It can be determined from

    Too Strong: can be determined

    It cannot conclusively be determined from this data that maze-learning depends on at least two sources. It's possible the author is correct that only kinesthesia is needed. To prove that, we would need a rat that is blind and deaf and can't smell but can still manage to learn the maze. Such a data point would prove that only kinesthesia is needed. Since they haven't done such an experiment (or told us about one like that), we need to still be on the fence as to whether kinesthesia is enough. Our goal is to show these authors that their conclusion could be wrong, not that it demonstrably is wrong (only once in a blue moon will we see an argument in which the author's evidence actually does prove that their conclusion is wrong; they are always mathematical in nature).

    10% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free