To find out how barn owls

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct91% picked this

   It fails to consider whether the owls' vision was permanently impaired by their having worn

   Why this is right

   Since this answer begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would Weaken. Can we object by saying, "Yo, scientists -- the owls' vision was permanently impaired by their having worn distorting lenses while immature"? Sure! That would be an Alternate Explanation for why they're still misjudging the location of sounds, even though the distorting lenses have been removed. The scientists are acting like the owls could see the accurate location of sounds, now that the distorting lenses have been removed. Thus, they surmise that the owls must not be using vision to locate sounds. We're objecting, "No -- what happened is y'all ruined these poor owls' vision by putting distorting lenses over their eyes from the second they opened their eyes until their bodies had fully matured into adulthood. Naturally, if a developing owl has only ever seen the world through these distorting lenses, then its visual system is going to be jacked up by the time it reaches adulthood."

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

   91%
2. B

   Trap2% picked this

   It assumes that the sense of sight is equally good in

   Not Assumed / Too Strong: equal in all This argument is only about barn owls. At no point is the author assuming that every single species of owl has identically good sight.

   2%
3. C

   Out of Scope: attributes human reasoning1% picked this

   It attributes human reasoning processes to a

   There's no part of this argument where we attribute a human reasoning process to the owl. The closest contender would be "developing an auditory scheme for estimating points from which sounds originate", but that's sensory processing, not reasoning, and there's nothing uniquely human about that.

   1%
4. D

   Irrelevant Objection1% picked this

   It neglects to consider how similar distorting lenses might affect the behavior of

   Can we object to the argument by saying, "Hey, scientists -- what about how distorting lenses might affect other bird species?" No. The conclusion is only trying to make sense of what's going on with these barn owls. The scientists don't need to consider how distorting lenses impact (or don't impact) other bird species.

   1%
5. E

   Not Irrelevant5% picked this

   It uses as evidence experimental results that were irrelevant to

   The experimental results are absolutely relevant to the conclusion. The conclusion is attempting to make sense of these experimental results.

   5%