Logical Reasoning

PT142 · S1 · Q4 Scientist: Rattlesnakes prey on young

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • 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

Start practicing free

Scientist: Rattlesnakes prey on young California ground squirrels.

Conclusion (hypothesis)

When squirrels puff up their tails, the tail heats up, which the snakes can detect through infrared sensing, which causes them to back off.

Evidence

Snakes can be repelled by the way adult squirrels puff up their tails and wag them.

Evaluate

As soon as we see the word "hypothesis" in our question stem, we know this will conform to the Explain Curious Fact framework.

CURIOUS FACT: why does the puffed squirrel tail repel the rattlesnake? EXPLANATION: the snake senses the heat from the tail and doesn't like it

Goal

We can strengthen by ruling out an alternate explanation or by boosting the plausibility of the author's explanation. The latter is much more likely on Strengthen questions. In particular, they love to boost plausibility with "no cause, no effect" answers. Here that would sound something like, .

4.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to support the scientist's hypothesis?

  1. Rattlesnakes do not have the

    Irrelevant Quality

    We're trying to assess whether rattlesnakes are repelled by a squirrel tail's heat, not whether rattlesnakes are capable of heating their own tail.

    1% picked this

  2. Squirrels puff up their tails

    No Impact

    This discusses another instance in which squirrels puff their tails, which is irrelevant to the instance we're analyzing. We're trying to figure out why snakes are repelled by the puffed tail, and this answer has nothing to do with that.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    Rattlesnakes react much more defensively

    Why this is right

    This choice effectively uses a "no cause, no effect" scenario: rattlesnakes react more defensively to a hot tail than a non-hot tail. It supports the hypothesis by illustrating that the heat is a crucial factor in repelling rattlesnakes, thus strengthening the argument.

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

    96% picked this

  4. The rattlesnake is not the

    No Impact

    This choice mentions that squirrels shake their tails at other predators, which doesn't do anything to strengthen the hypothesis about rattlesnakes being repelled by the heat.

    2% picked this

  5. Mammals such as the California

    No Impact

    The hypothesis involves the snakes having an infrared sense, so that they can register the heat of the squirrel's tail and be bugged out. But we don't care whether squirrels have an infrared sense.

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
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