Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT104 S2 P3 Q18 Explanation

Fighting Birds

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsOrganizationScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Many birds that form flocks compete through aggressive interaction for priority of access to resources such as food and shelter. The result of repeated interactions between flock members is that each bird gains a particular social status related to its fighting ability, with priority of access to resources increasing with higher status. announcing fighting ability and thereby obviating the actual need to fight, could be one such attribute.

The zoologist Rohwer assented that plumage variations in “Harris sparrows” support the status signaling hypothesis (SSH). He reported that almost without exception birds with darker throats win conflicts with individuals having lighter plumage. He claimed that even among birds amount of dark plumage predicts relative dominance status.

However, Rohwer’s data do not support his assertions: in one of his studies darker birds won only 57 out of 75 conflicts; within another, focusing on conflicts between birds of the same age group or sex, darker birds won 63 and lost 62. There are indications that plumage probably does signal broad birds within an age class, and thus cannot properly be included under the term “status signaling.”

The best evidence for status signaling is from the greater titmouse. Experiments show a strong correlation between the width of the black breast-plumage stripe and status as measured by success in aggressive interactions. An analysis of factors likely to be associated with breast-stripe width (sex, age, wing length, body weight) has demonstrated with stripe width when the other variables are held constant.

An ingenious experiment provided further evidence for status signaling in the greater titmouse. One of three stuffed titmouse dummies was mounted on a feeding tray. When a live bird approached, the dummy was turned by radio control to face the bird and present its breast stripe in “display.” When presented with a broader breast stripe than their own, live birds acted submissive and did not approach.

What this question is testing

Organization

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
18.

Which one of the following best describes the organization of

Answer choices

  1. Correct63% picked this

    A hypothesis is introduced and studies relevant to the hypothesis are

    Why this is right

    The first paragraph does indeed introduce the Status Signaling Hypothesis (SSH). The 2nd paragraph discusses Rohwer's study of SSH within Harris sparrows, and in the 3rd paragraph the author evaluates this study as weak. The 4th and 5th paragraph discuss studies of SSH within the titmouse, and the author evaluates this study as "the best evidence" for the hypothesis.

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

  2. Out of Scope: several explanations9% picked this

    A natural phenomenon is presented and several explanations for the phenomenon are

    The first paragraph tells us about flocking birds that compete aggressively for access to food / shelter and status. The passage never offers explanations for why they fight for priority of access to resources or for status. The first paragraph also hints at a natural phenomenon of evolved traits that would signal superior fighting ability. The passage never offers several explanations for this. The only explanation is towards the end of the 1st paragraph: "birds possessing attributes that reduce the number of costly interactions, without leading to a reduction in status, are at an advantage". That explains why birds might evolve a trait that would signal superior fighting ability. This answer wouldn't touch on paragraphs 2, 3, 4, or 5, in which the passage is considering whether this status signaling hypothesis is supported by evidence. An explanation for a phenomenon is why it's happening. Evidence for a phenomenon is showing that it's happening.

  3. Out of Scope: underlying causes11% picked this

    Behavior is described, possible underlying causes for the behavior are reported and the likelihood of

    Just like (B), this is making it sound like the passage spent the whole time trying to figure why flocking birds fight and compete for resources. We know why -- it's common sense. There aren't enough resources to go around, so living things compete for what's available. We can't match up "plumage variations / broad breast stripe" with behavior, so this answer has nothing to do with status signals.

  4. Out of Scope: history0% picked this

    A scientific conundrum is explained and the history of the issue

    It's hard to say the first paragraph gives us any conundrum. We speculate that birds might have evolved a signal that allows them to avoid fighting all the time to determine status. Is that a conundrum? And the two studies (harris sparrows and titmouse) that fill up the rest of the passage have nothing to do with telling the history of an issue.

  5. Out of Scope: experiments against17% picked this

    A scientific theory is outlined and opinions for and against its validity as well as experiments supporting

    There aren't any arguments in the passage against the status signaling hypothesis being valid. And there aren't any experiments trying to show it's invalid. The study in the 2nd paragraph believes that SSH is valid and is claiming to have data that supports the validity. The author, in the 3rd paragraph, says, "That's not good supporting data. Let me show you in the 4th and 5th some better supporting data." But nothing in the passage is trying argue that the SSH is wrong.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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