Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT119 S1 P3 Q21 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
21.

The third paragraph of the passage provides the most support for which one of

Answer choices

  1. Too Strong (do not attack)7% picked this

    Predators do not attack grazing animals that are assembled

    We're told that assembling into herds diminishes the chances of any particular animal being attacked, but this answer is saying that herding eliminates the chance that one of the animals will be attacked.

  2. Too Strong: only Contradicted6% picked this

    Pronghorns tend to graze in herds only when they sense a threat from

    This is not only way too strong (only), but it's also contradicted. The 3rd paragraph was telling us that pronghorns continue to graze, even though the predator threat that gave rise to this herding behavior no longer exists in the pronghorn's environment. So the pronghorns are constantly grazing even though "they have nothing to fear from present-day carnivores and thus have nothing to gain from herding".

  3. Too Strong (conditional)4% picked this

    If animals do not graze for their food, they do not

    This is saying that "all animals that roam in herds graze for food". We can't possibly support any categorical that strong from what we were told about the pronghorn in the 3rd paragraph.

  4. Too Strong: only18% picked this

    Female pronghorns mate only with the fastest male pronghorn in

    The end of the 3rd paragraph is saying that female pronghorns choose mates based on traits such as speed and endurance. It also says that a female will choose the victor after two males challenge each other in a race. But this answer is saying that every single female pronghorn in a herd mates with the same male. Whoever is fastest in the herd mates with all the females. We weren't told that. The idea is that females will pick faster mates over slower mates, but it wasn't saying that all females mate with the same male.

  5. Correct66% picked this

    If pronghorns did not herd, they would not face significantly greater danger

    Why this is right

    The 3rd paragraph is telling us that herding is an example of a behavior that was created in response to a predator that no longer exists. Back in the day, the pronghorn was preyed on by big carnivores and so it adapted herding as a defense mechanism. But those carnivores are now extinct, yet the pronghorns continue to herd as a relict behavior. As the 3rd paragraph tells us, "Pronghorns have nothing to fear from present-day carnivores and thus have nothing to gain from herding". So were they to stop herding, they wouldn't face significantly greater danger.

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

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