Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT119 S1 P3 Q18 Explanation

Pronghorns

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

TopicsInferenceScience

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

The pronghorn, an antelope-like mammal that lives on the western plains of North America, is the continent’s fastest land animal, capable of running 90 kilometers per hour and of doing so for several kilometers. Because no North American predator is nearly fast enough to chase it down, biologists have had difficulty explaining long-legged hyenas, either of which, it is believed, were fast enough to run down the pronghorn.

Like all explanations that posit what is called a relict behavior—a behavior that persists though its only evolutionary impetus comes from long-extinct environmental conditions—this one is likely to meet with skepticism. Most biologists distrust explanations positing relict behaviors, in part because testing these hypotheses is so difficult due to the extinction of do so. But present-day observations sometimes yield evidence that supports relict behavior hypotheses.

In the case of the pronghorn, researchers have identified much supporting evidence, as several aspects of pronghorn behavior appear to have been shaped by enemies that no longer exist. For example, pronghorns—like many other grazing animals—roam in herds, which allows more eyes to watch for predators and diminishes the chances of any pronghorns, for example, choosing the victor after male pronghorns challenge each other in sprints and chases.

Relict behaviors appear to occur in other animals as well, increasing the general plausibility of such a theory. For example, one study reports relict behavior in stickleback fish belonging to populations that have long been free of a dangerous predator, the sculpin. In the study, when presented with sculpin, these stickleback fish to recognize the threat of a rattlesnake, exhibiting only disorganized caution even after being bitten repeatedly.

What this question is testing

Inference

Topic

The author is investigating a small mystery: why is the pronghorn (an antelope-like animal) so weirdly fast when nothing currently chases it?

Framework

Problem-Solution. The author presents the puzzle and walks through a proposed answer with its supporting evidence.

Main Point

The simpler version: pronghorns can run 90 km/h, but no current predator is anywhere close to that fast. Why? One theory says they're still running from predators that went extinct 10,000 years ago — basically, evolution hasn't caught up. Biologists are usually skeptical of "they're running from ghosts" explanations because they're hard to test, but in the pronghorn case the rest of the animal's behavior (herd grouping, mate preferences) lines up. Other animals show similar leftover behaviors too — fish that fear extinct fish predators, squirrels that recognize rattlesnakes despite no contact for thousands of years.

P1: The mystery

Pronghorns run way faster than anything currently chasing them. One biologist's theory: they're adapted to predators that went extinct 10,000 years ago — American cheetahs and long-legged hyenas.

P2: Why this kind of theory is hard to swallow

"Relict behavior" — a behavior left over from extinct conditions — is hard to test because the predator is gone. Biologists usually only accept it when nothing else works.

P3: The evidence stacks up

Pronghorns herd — useful for spotting and avoiding predators, but costly because of food competition. Why bother if no predator threatens? Looks like a leftover. Similarly, female pronghorns choose mates by speed, which would have mattered when fast predators existed.

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.

The last paragraph most strongly supports which one of the

Answer choices

  1. Trap5% picked this

    An absence of predators in an animal’s environment can constitute just as much of a threat to the well-being of that animal

    Too Strong / Unsupported Comparison: just as much This sort of violates common sense. How would an absence of predators be a threat to the well-being of an animal? All we heard is that if an absence of predators persists for long enough (like 3 million years), then a relict behavior might eventually disappear.

  2. Too Strong: most3% picked this

    Relict behaviors are found in most wild animals

    We're told that relict behaviors "appear to occur in other animals". But that's nowhere near strong enough to justify the claim that more than 50% of wild animals living today have relict behaviors.

  3. Correct82% picked this

    If a behavior is an adaptation to environmental conditions, it may eventually disappear in the absence of

    Why this is right

    This is supported by what we learn about ground squirrels. They adapted to the presence of rattlesnakes with certain anti-rattlesnake behavior. They have been free from snakes for 70-300 thousand years, but this relict behavior persists. If they happen to see a rattlesnake, they still react with that evolved rattlesnake behavior. But .. according to the last couple sentences, a subtype of ground squirrels that has been free of snakes for 3 million years does not exhibit the evolved rattlesnake behavior. So that anti-rattlesnake behavior is an adaptation to environmental conditions (rattlesnakes), but it may eventually disappear in the absence of snakes, as it has with the arctic ground squirrels.

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

  4. Too Strong: persist interminably9% picked this

    Behavior patterns that originated as a way of protecting an organism against predators will persist interminably if

    This is sort of the inversion of (C). (C) is saying, "if defensive behavior patterns are NOT periodically reinforced (if the predator is absent for long enough), then that behavior may disappear". That is supported by what we learned about arctic ground squirrels. This is saying, "if defensive behavior patterns ARE periodically reinforced, they will last FOREVER." There's nothing in the paragraph to support a claim that strong.

  5. Too Strong1% picked this

    Behavior patterns invariably take longer to develop than they do

    Too Strong: invariably Unsupported Comparison: longer to develop We have no information about how long it takes for animals to initially develop these behaviors, so there's no way to compare how long it takes to develop vs. how long it takes to disappear. It's suggested by the last paragraph that it takes more than 300,000 years for one of these patterns to disappear. To pick this answer, we'd need to know that it always takes more than 300,000 years for these patterns to develop, but we don't have any information like that.

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