Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT140 S4 P4 Q26 Explanation

Explaining Mirror Images

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

TopicsAuthor OpinionScience

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

Author Opinion

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
26.

The author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about the field-of-sight explanation

Answer choices

  1. Opposite, if Anything14% picked this

    This explanation is based on the traditional desire of physicists to simplify the explanation of

    This answer sounds more like how the author described the front-to-back explanation (the 3rd paragraph is saying that front-to-back has intuitive appeal because it basically validates our fraudulent mental constructs about mirrors). I know when I read this passage, I had a way simpler time understanding the front-to-back than I did the field-of-sight.

  2. Correct53% picked this

    This explanation does not depend on the false premise that images in mirrors

    Why this is right

    At the end of the 2nd paragraph, the author said, "the most notable (i.e. special / unique) thing about this explanation is that it's based on a false premise that the object in the mirror is three dimensional." Since the author singles out that characteristic about the front-to-back explanation, we can infer that this characteristic is not shared by field-of-sight. For example, no one would say, "There are two main candidates for President: Biden and Trump. The most notable thing about Trump is that he's an old white guy." because Biden is also an old white guy.

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

  3. Opposite19% picked this

    This explanation fails to take into account the point of view and orientation of someone who is observing

    The field-of-sight is explicitly about the point of view and orientation of someone observing reflections!

  4. Unsupported: people don't understand7% picked this

    This explanation assumes that people who see something in a mirror do not understand the reality

    Neither explanation assumes that people don't understand the reality of what they see.

  5. Opposite: unsuccessful6% picked this

    This explanation is unsuccessful because it involves claims about how people rotate their field of sight rather than claims

    The author thinks this is a more successful explanation, since it actually takes into account the observer who is observing the images/appearances of things in the mirror.

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