Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S3 · Q11 The everyday behavior of whales

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

The everyday behavior of whales is particularly difficult to study because introducing novel stimuli, such as divers or submarines, into the whales' environment causes whales to behave in unusual ways.

Conclusion

Using the sea lions to film the whales would allow biologists to study the everyday behavior of the whales.

Evidence (since)

Introducing novel stimuli, such as divers or submarines, causes whales to behave in unusual ways.

But whales are accustomed to there being sea lions nearby, and we could potentially train the sea lions to carry video cameras on their backs and swim along with the whales.

Evaluate

We're trying to solve a problem: we want to study usual, everyday behavior of whales, but we can't introduce novel stimuli into the whale's environment or else they act weird.

This argument recommends a potential solution. So the author assumes that this solution is feasible and would be able to solve the problem.

What does the author need to assume in order to think this this plan is feasible? - sea lions can be trained to, on command, swim along with whales - sea lions would be willing to follow those commands - the extra weight of the camera wouldn't prevent the sea lion from being able to keep up with the whales

What does the author need to assume in order to think that this plan avoids the problem of "novel stimuli"? - a whale wouldn't consider consider a sea lion with a camera on its back, following it around all day, to be "novel stimuli"

This argument is a good example of the Assumes a Difference pattern.

- We can't do X or Y, because it has problem A. can't do divers or submarines, because of 'novel stimuli'

- Thus, we should do Z (which assumes that Z is different in regards to problem A) we should put cameras on sea lions (which assumes that 'cameras on sea lions' would be different from other novel stimuli)

Goal

Look for an answer saying , or for any other answer that, if negated, would allow us to argue that this plan probably won't work.

11.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the biologists' reasoning depends?

  1. Whales will often react aggressively

    Unrelated to Plan

    This has nothing to do with whether this sea lions + cameras play is feasible. The author's assumptions are only related to whether sea lions wearing cameras could feasibly allow us to record whale's everyday behavior.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    The behavior of the sea

    Why this is right

    If we negate this, then we get our big objection: this is going to seem like novel stimuli to the whales! If the behavior of the sea lions (i.e. swimming along side the whales, rather than just chilling near rocky shores that whales pass by) is not behavior to which the whales are accustomed, then it will seem like novel stimuli to the whales, which will cause the whales to behave in unusual ways, which thwarts the goal of our plan: recording their everyday behavior. Another way to rephrase this answer: "the stuff we're going to make the sea lions do is all stuff the whales will consider normal; it's all stuff the whales are accustomed to; it won't seem like novel stimuli."

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

    83% picked this

  3. The trained sea lions will

    Not Necessary

    The author hasn't indicated anything about the sea lions' awareness one way or the other, but this has the very lovable ruling-out "not" that's common in correct answers to Necessary Assumption. If we negate this, does it weaken the argument? If sea lions are aware that they're carrying video cameras, does that jeopardize the success of this plan? Who knows? It only messes up the plan if they're unwilling to wear it or if they're awareness of it makes them act in ways that whales consider "novel stimuli". But negating this answer doesn't tell us that, "If the sea lion is aware, they won't cooperate", nor does it tell us that, "If the sea lion is aware, the whales will consider it novel stimuli." So we'd be doing a lot of speculating to turn this negation into an objection.

    2% picked this

  4. Sea lions carrying video cameras

    Irrelevant Comparison

    The problem the sea lions are designed to solve isn't "how can we get closer to the whales". It's "how can we film the whales' everyday behavior? They start acting weird as soon as they sense novel stimuli." If we negate this and say, "actually divers can get as close (or closer) than sea lions", it wouldn't hurt the author's argument at all. He would just say, "Yeah, humans can get within a few feet of them, but so what. The whale acts so weird as a result that we're not getting good footage of their everyday behavior."

    5% picked this

  5. Whales prefer the presence of

    Out of Scope: prefer

    The causal difference-maker this Problem / Solution revolves around is not whether or not a whale prefers the presence of something; it's about whether not the present of something is normal vs. abnormal. Whales might prefer human divers to sea lions, but if that makes them behave in unusual ways (like showing off for their rad human friends), then we don't get to observe their everyday behavior.

    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