The vomeronasal organ (VNO) is found

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct74% picked this

   It is not known whether the researchers succeeded in stimulating only VNO cells in the

   Why this is right

   This is an incredibly weak correct answer, but in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king (i.e. this answer at least creates some doubt). Also, in general we'll see LSAT consider the possibility of an Alternate Explanation to be a more powerful weakener than something that pokes holes at the plausibility of the author's explanation. If it's possible that the researchers stimulated not only VNO cells but also regular olfactory cells, then the reason people reported smelling stuff was because we accidentally stimulated their regular ol' nasal olfactory organ. This answer opens up the possibility for an Alternate Explanation for why people experienced smell sensations (it wasn't because the VNO sent sensory information to their brain, it's because we accidentally triggered olfactory cells too).

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

   74%
2. B

   Unclear Impact7% picked this

   Relative to its occurrence in certain other animals, the human VNO appears to be anatomically

   Saying that the human VNO is more rudimentary and underdeveloped than the VNO in other organisms does feel like it could be ammunition for arguing that the VNO is not a functioning organ in humans. But does underdeveloped / rudimentary mean not-functioning? Not really. Long before evolution had perfected the eyeball, the first evolutionary building blocks to having a visual sensory organ was the development of a dense patch of light sensitive cells. The earliest forms of vision had no focus, but they could detect differences in light. Should we consider that a functioning organ? Yes, probably. Calling an organ "functioning" doesn't necessitate that it does something super well. We would call the human nose a functioning organ, even though if we compared our sense of smell to that of dog's, it would be like comparing a rudimentary patch of light-sensitive cells to a complex eyeball.

   7%
3. C

   Unclear Impact14% picked this

   Certain chemicals that play a leading role in the way the VNO functions in animals in which it is highly developed do not appear

   This seems to somewhat attack the plausibility of the author's conclusion. If humans lack the chemicals that play a leading role in how the VNO functions elsewhere, then that somewhat suggests that our VNO isn't a functioning one. But of course it's also possible that our VNO is a functioning one, and just uses different chemicals to play a leading role in its functionality.

   14%
4. D

   Same as (C)5% picked this

   Secondary anatomical structures associated with the VNO in other animals seem to be

   The existence of this answer would tell us that (C) is probably wrong as well. They would have the same logical force, trying to suggest that VNO isn't functioning in humans, since humans don't have the same sort of VNO that other animals have (ours lacks certain chemicals theirs have / ours lacks certain secondary anatomical structures that theirs have). This also goes back to the conversation for (B), which is that "Humans' VNO does not need to be as sophisticated or developed as that of other animals in order for it to still be functioning."

   5%
5. E

   Strengthens1% picked this

   For many animal species, the VNO is thought to subtly enhance the

   This adds some more plausibility to the author's conclusion. If VNO's are thought to subtly enhance smell for other animals, then they are thought to be a functioning sensory organ for other animals. And if humans in this experiment were experiencing subtle enhancements of smell during VNO stimulation, then this sort of corroborates the same story.

   1%