Logical Reasoning

PT142 · S2 · Q18 To find out how barn owls

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

To find out how barn owls learn how to determine the direction from which sounds originate, scientists put distorting lenses over the eyes of young barn owls before the owls first opened their eyes.

Conclusion

Once a barn owl has developed an auditory scheme for estimating the point from which sounds originate, it ceases to use vision to locate sounds.

Evidence

In an experiment, scientists put distorting lenses over the eyes of young barn owls before the owls first opened their eyes. The lenses made them behave as if objects making sounds were farther to the right than they actually were.

Once the owls matured, the lenses were removed, yet the owls continued to act as if they misjudged the location of the source of sounds.

Evaluate

Since we're dealing with a study/experiment, we're probably being set up for a causal conclusion. As soon as we see "the scientists consequently hypothesized", then we know we're dealing with a causal conclusion. "Hypothesis" on LSAT almost always means "a causal explanation for a phenomenon".

So we can use the Explain Curious Fact framework we often use for causality.

Curious Fact .... how come these adult owls are still misjudging the whereabouts of objects making sounds, even after we've removed the distorting lenses from their eyes?

Author's Explanation .... While the owls were wearing these distorting lenses, they developed an auditory scheme based on that distorted vision, and then they stopped using vision at all to locate sounds. So even though the lenses are removed and they would be able to see the correct whereabouts of the sounds, they're relying on an auditory scheme that is still "distorted".

Goal

When we see an author conclude/assume a causal explanation for a phenomenon on Flaw, the issue is almost always that the author is too sure of one possibility, and is failing to consider other possible explanations.

So let's look for an answer saying that these scientists are failing to consider some alternative explanation for why the owls continue to misjudge the location of the sounds, even though the distorting lenses have been removed from their eyes.

(Or we'd love an answer suggesting that the owls still ARE using their vision at least in part to locate sounds)

18.

The scientists' reasoning is vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?

  1. Correct

    It fails to consider whether

    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.

    92% picked this

  2. It assumes that the sense

    Trap

    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% picked this

  3. It attributes human reasoning processes

    Out of Scope: attributes human reasoning

    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% picked this

  4. It neglects to consider how

    Irrelevant Objection

    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% picked this

  5. It uses as evidence experimental

    Not Irrelevant

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

    5% 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