Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT140 S4 P4 Q24 Explanation

Explaining Mirror Images

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

TopicsPrimary PurposeScience

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

Physicists are often asked why the image of an object, such as a chair, appears reversed left-to-right rather than, say, top-to-bottom when viewed in a mirror. Their answer is simply that an image viewed in a mirror appears reversed about the axis around which the viewer rotates his or her field of sight about a vertical axis, mirror images usually appear reversed left-to-right. This is the field-of-sight explanation.

However, some physicists offer a completely different explanation of what mirrors “do,” suggesting that mirrors actually reverse things front-to-back. If we place a chair in front of a mirror we can envision how its reflected image will appear by imagining another chair in the space “inside” the mirror. The resulting reflection is explanation treats it as though it were as real and three dimensional as the original chair.

This explanation appeals strongly to many people, however, because it is quite successful at explaining what a mirror does—to a point. It seems natural because we are accustomed to dealing with our mental constructs of objects rather than with the primary sense perceptions on which those constructs are based. In general, we our eyes; rather, we look into them, with our focal lengths adjusted into the imagined space.

In addition to its intuitive appeal, the front-to-back explanation is motivated in part by the traditional desire in science to separate the observer from the phenomenon. Scientists like to think that what mirrors do should be explainable without reference to what the observer does (e.g., rotating a field of sight). However, questions longer addressing images and appearances, because an image entails an observer and a point of view.

What this question is testing

Primary Purpose

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
24.

In the passage the author is primarily concerned with doing which one

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: experimental evidence9% picked this

    evaluating the experimental evidence for and against two diametrically opposed explanations of

    There are no experiments referred to in this passage. The author is comparing two explanations of a given phenomenon, but we don't look at experiments conducted by both sides.

  2. Out of Scope: different empirical22% picked this

    demonstrating that different explanations of the same phenomenon are based on

    The empirical observations people have about mirrors flipping things aren't different. We all see images flipped in the mirror. We're all making the same observation. Also, this answer choice sounds like it's legitimizing both explanations (hey, they're just coming from different observational evidence), but the passage doesn't think the 2nd explanation is legit.

  3. Too Strong: must be overcome14% picked this

    describing the difficulties that must be overcome if a satisfactory explanation of a phenomenon is

    This answer makes it sound like the author is unhappy with both explanations presented and is ending the passage saying, "As you can see, we still don't have a satisfactory explanation -- here's what we would need in order to get one." But the author seems implicitly satisfied with the explanation in the first paragraph. She never pushes back against it. That explanation isn't vulnerable to the objection she's making at the end of the 4th paragraph. That objection is only for the 2nd explanation.

  4. Correct48% picked this

    showing why one explanation of a phenomenon falls short in explaining

    Why this is right

    This sounds the most like a Challenge a Position type purpose. The author presents the standard explanation for reversed images in mirrors, then Purpose Pivots (but, yet, however, recently) into this 2nd explanation. After explaining it, then discussing the appeal of it and the motives behind it, she ends with why it isn't a satisfactory explanation.

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

  5. Trap7% picked this

    relating the theoretical support for an explanation of a phenomenon to the acceptance

    Too Narrow Out of Scope: theoretical support In the 3rd paragraph, the author is getting into the subject matter of how the intuitive appeal of the 2nd phenomenon makes people want to accept it, and how the motivation to remove the observer from physical explanations makes physicists want to accept it. But this is not the main purpose of the passage. Also, we don't really ever talk about "theoretical support" for either explanation (we kinda just hear what each explanation is), and we don't connect theoretical support to acceptance.

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