Reading Comprehension

PT104 · S3 · P3 · Q18 Homing Pigeons

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension 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

Homing pigeons can be taken from their lofts and transported hundreds of kilometers in covered cages to unfamiliar sites and yet, when released, be able to choose fairly accurate homeward bearings within a minute and fly home.

Topic

How homing pigeons are able to navigate back home from unfamiliar distant locations.

Framework

Answer / Explain

Main Point

Scientists have investigated several explanations for pigeons' homing ability, including tracking their own displacement (like bees) and having a "map sense" (possibly olfactory), but no theory has been definitively proven. *Most Valuable Sentence: (P3)*

P1: Two Main Theories for Homing Ability

Pigeons can navigate home over long distances, and researchers have proposed two main ideas to explain this: either pigeons track their journey step by step, or they have a kind of mental "map sense" that gives them their location relative to home.

P2: Challenges to the Displacement/Tracking Theory

The idea that pigeons keep track of their route (like with an "internal compass" or by sensing movement) doesn't hold up; experiments disrupting their senses don’t seem to affect their ability to find home, though the "ultimate" test combining all disruptions at once hasn't been done.

P3: Investigating the “Map Sense” Hypothesis

The "map sense" theory, especially the idea that it relies on smell, looks more promising—one scientist, Papi, showed that plugging pigeons’ nostrils seems to impair their homing.

18.

Information in the passage supports which one of the following statements regarding the "first alternative" (first sentence of the second paragraph) for explaining the ability of pigeons to "home"?

  1. It has been conclusively ruled

    Too Strong: conclusively

    The beginning of the 2nd paragraph said that this explanation "seems unlikely". That's not nearly as strong as "conclusively ruled out". In fact, to somewhat contradict this, the author's final sentence of the 2nd paragraph is even suggesting that "we can't fully rule out this hypothesis until someone performs the crucial study of doing W, X, Y, and Z all at the same time."

    3% picked this

  2. It seems unlikely because there

    Contradicted: no theoretical models

    The 2nd sentence of the 2nd paragraph says that there is a theoretical model that could explain it: "one possible model for such an inertial system could be ..." The author tells us that research has seemed to rule out this model as being the correct description of how pigeons track displacement, but ruling out a possible model is different from "there are no theoretical models that could explain it".

    9% picked this

  3. Correct

    It has not, to date,

    Why this is right

    This seems like a decent summary of where the 2nd paragraph leaves us, although we could support this pretty well simply from its first line: "the first alternative seems unlikely". The "unlikely" conveys that it's not supported by data, but the "seems" conveys that we haven't ruled it out fully. The fact that experiments messing with the pigeons' magnetism and experiments messing with the pigeon's ability to see and feel momentum both seem to have no effect on the pigeon's ability to home shows that this theory has not been supported by experimental data. The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph also supports the idea that we haven't definitively rule out this theory, since no one has yet performed "the crucial experiment" that would potentially rule it out.

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

    81% picked this

  4. It seems unlikely in theory,

    Out of Scope: recent support

    The first half of this matches up with the beginning of the 2nd paragraph, but the second half of this matches up with nothing. All the experimental data in the 2nd paragraph went against the theory.

    1% picked this

  5. It is not a useful

    Out of Scope: not useful

    Nothing in the 2nd paragraph suggests that the author thinks it's not a useful theory. The author just doesn't think it's accurate. Also, the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph names a specific experiment by which researchers could test this theory, so saying that "it's difficulty to design experiments" seems somewhat contradicted.

    6% picked this

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