Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT140 S4 P4 Q27 Explanation

Explaining Mirror Images

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

TopicsLocal 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

Local Purpose

Your task

Identify why the author included the referenced detail at that point in the passage — its function, not its content.

Common trap

Answers that merely repeat or summarize the topic of the detail instead of describing the role it plays.

Winning move

Ask what job the detail does for the paragraph, then for the passage's broader point.

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

The question
27.

The author mentions the fact that we rarely focus our eyes on mirrors (Third Paragraph) primarily

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope: imagine objects11% picked this

    contrast our capacity to perceive objects with our capacity to

    We are talking about artificially believing that there's a person "in the mirror" standing as far behind its surface as we are standing in front of it. But we're not quite imagining objects. Those objects are in the room with us. We're just perceiving their appearance in the mirror in a way that is contrary to fact.

  2. Too Strong: impossible12% picked this

    emphasize that it is impossible to perceive reflected objects without using mental constructs

    The author is never saying anything as strong as, "it is impossible to perceive a reflected object without using mental constructs". We can't find any supporting text that has wording that extreme.

  3. Correct37% picked this

    clarify the idea that mirrors simulate

    Why this is right

    This reinforces the 2nd to last sentence of the 3rd paragraph. We know the function of the last sentence of the 3rd is an example to illustrate what was said in the 2nd to last. So we should be happy to see an answer choice saying, "it was there to illustrate what we were saying in the 2nd to last sentence". That's just what this does. That 2nd to last sentence said: mirrors are "designed" to make a two-dimensional surface appear to have depth (i.e. appear to have three-dimensions). For example, we don't focus our eyes on them. (meaning, we look into them as though they have depth. Again, the general formula for Local Purpose questions is to find an answer that sounds like the sentence / bigger claim that came right before the detail the question stem is asking about.

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

  4. Contradicted: typical27% picked this

    illustrate the fact that we typically deal directly with mental constructs rather

    Saying that we don't focus our eyes on the surface of a mirror wasn't trying to illustrate that we typically deal with mental constructs. If fact, this line tells us that mirrors are among the few objects where we don't focus our eyes on them. So this is illustrating something atypical, not typical.

  5. Out of Scope: psychological activity13% picked this

    emphasize the degree to which the psychological activity of the observer modifies the shape of

    Not focusing our eyes on the surface of a mirror doesn't quite match the term "psychological activity" (like thought / emotion). We don't exert voluntary control over our focal length. That would be like calling blinking a psychological activity.

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