Reading Comprehension

PT112 · S2 · P3 · Q18 Hormones

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

Start practicing free

Discussions of how hormones influence behavior have generally been limited to the effects of gonadal hormones on reproductive behavior and have emphasized the parsimonious arrangement whereby the same hormones involved in the biology of reproduction also influence sexual behavior.

Topic

Hormones and their role in both reproductive and homeostatic (fluid balance) behaviors

Framework

Old / New

Main Point

Previously, people mainly focused on how reproductive hormones affect sexual behavior, but now it’s clear that other hormones, specifically those involved in fluid balance (like vasopressin), also play an important role in controlling behaviors such as water and salt consumption. ( — middle of P1)

P1: Challenging the Narrow Focus on Hormones

Most research has looked at how reproductive (gonadal) hormones affect sexual behavior, but now scientists realize that hormones involved in regulating body fluids (homeostasis) also influence behavior, like thirst and salt appetite. Homeostasis keeps plasma osmolality (solute concentration) steady by tweaking water and sodium intake and output whenever even small changes arise.

P2: How Homeostatic Hormones Control Thirst and Water/Salt Balance

This paragraph explains how water and solute levels are managed in the body through both physiological and behavioral responses. For example, if you have too much water in your body, the hormone vasopressin gets suppressed so your body can get rid of the excess through urine and you stop feeling thirsty. If your blood is too salty, vasopressin gets released to conserve water and increase thirst, so you’ll drink more and dilute the salts. Thirst kicks in only after the body’s initial physiological measures (like vasopressin release) have already tried to fix the imbalance.

18.

The primary function of the passage as a whole is to

Correct
present new information
Why this is right
This is super bland, but it works for our Old / New type framework. Discussions of how hormones influence behavior have (in the past) generally been limited to how gonadal hormones affect reproductive behavior. However, it has now become clear that other hormones can affect behavior too. That's really the only textual help we get. The rest of the passage just delves oh-so-deeply into the specifics of how other hormones can affect behavior.
Skill tested: Primary Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
88% picked this
question standard assumptions
Out of Scope: question assumptions
This almost works. If the first sentence had said, "It is typically assumed that hormones only influence behavior by gonadal hormones affecting reproductive behavior", then the pivot to "but now we see other hormones also affect behavior" could qualify as questioning a standard assumption. But there isn't any standard assumption cited. There's just a scientific tendency. Discussions have been limited to X. There has been a bias towards talking about X. Our author isn't saying that X is untrue. She's not questioning X. She's just saying we now realize that there's more to the story than just X.
3% picked this
reinterpret earlier findings
Out of Scope: reinterpret
The author doesn't reinterpret any earlier findings. The earlier findings, if we can even call them that, would be about how gonadal hormones influence reproductive behavior. Nothing in the passage talks about gonadal hormones or reproductive behavior, after that first sentence, so none of the passage is reinterpreting or revising anything about gonadal hormones and reproductive behavior. The passage is "adding onto earlier findings" with new findings about other hormones that also affect behavior.
4% picked this
advocate a novel theory
Out of Scope: novel theory
The author isn't advocating a new theory; she's just reporting our updated understanding. To advocate a novel theory is to say, "I think maybe we should look into the ideas of String Theorists more. Their math seems to reconcile quantum mechanics with Newtonian physics. I'm intrigued and you should be too." Instead, the author is announcing findings. - "It has now become clear that Y" - "Specifically, Z appears to play an important role in A." A theory would be a more hypothetical construct of ideas. This author is just telling us biological stuff we've figured out about human anatomy.
2% picked this
outline a new approach
Weak Match: new approach
This is similar to (A). When it comes to present vs. outline, there's no clear winner. Both of them feel fine, for a passage that laid out a lot of facts about hormones and the body. They are both better than advocate, which sounds more like the author is trying to persuade us of something that we don't necessarily have to agree with. But when it comes to new information vs. new approach, which is the better match? "It has now become clear that other hormones can affect behavior. Specifically, peptide and steroid hormones appear to play an important role in the control of water and salt consumption." This sounds more like new info. There's no new approach described in that sentence.
3% 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