Logical Reasoning

PT142 · S4 · Q8 Given the shape of the hip

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

Given the shape of the hip and foot bones of the Kodiak bear, it has been determined that standing and walking upright is completely natural behavior for these bears.

Conclusion (Thus)

Walking on hind legs is instinctive and not a learned behavior of the Kodiak.

Evidence

Given their hip shape and foot bones, standing and walking upright is completely natural behavior for these bears.

Evaluate

The link here seems to be

Do we accept that move? Is it possible that a learned behavior just happens to conform 'naturally' to certain anatomical traits you have?

Do all Kodiak bears walk? Or is it only the ones you have seen humans traipsing around upright on their legs? There may be counterevidence to the idea that walking on hind legs is instinctive. There may be evidence that walking on hind legs is learned (for exmaple, none of the Kodiak bears in a certain group walked on hind legs until they saw a human doing it).

Goal

This argument doesn't seem to be any of the famous flaws, so we can anticipate that the correct answer will call out its central assumption (if walking upright is a completely natural behavior, then it's an instinctive, not learned, behavior) or it will bring up potential objections that one could use to argue that walking upright is a learned behavior for the Kodiak.

8.

To which one of the following criticisms is the argument most vulnerable?

  1. The argument incorrectly generalizes from

    Bad Evidence Match Not Sampling

    This is alluding to the famous Sampling flaw, in which an author presents evidence about a small set of data points and then concludes that the same thing would be true for a larger set of data points. But the evidence in this argument didn't refer to "a few Kodiak bears".

    0% picked this

  2. Correct

    The argument fails to consider

    Why this is right

    Since this answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether it would be an Objection. If we say that "walking on hind legs is both learned and innate", is that an objection? Sure! The conclusion said that "walking on hind legs is not learned", so this is basically contradicting part of the conclusion. That definitely weakens, so this counts as an objection. More conversationally -- the author was thinking that since the Kodiak bear has anatomical features that make it a great candidate for walking, its walking must be by anatomical design, not by learned behavior. And this answer is just saying, "couldn't it be that the anatomical underpinnings were there, but the Kodiak bear also required some learning in order to walk the way it does?" We could look at the bodies of Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps and say, "Their sprinting or swimming skills, respectively, are instinctive not learned." But the reality is that they're both -- they have body types that are particularly well suited to their sports, but they still had lots of training (i.e. learning) to optimize that capacity.

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

    91% picked this

  3. The word "behavior" illicitly changes

    Not Equivocation

    This describes the famous Equivocation flaw, in which a term or concept gets used two different times in two very different ways. The word behavior does have different meanings. It can just mean 'a certain action taken by an organism', like when we say, "The honeybee's wiggle dance is a curious behavior that scientists think is communicating to other honeybees the location of a food source". And behavior can mean 'how someone conducts themselves', like when we say, "The prisoner was released early from his sentence, for good behavior." But this argument only spoke about behavior in that first sense.

    2% picked this

  4. The argument presumes, without giving

    Too Strong: all

    Since this answer begins with presumes / takes for granted, we can ask ourselves, "Did the argument need to assume this?" Like so many assumption answers on Flaw, this one is way too strong. This author didn't commit herself to the incredibly strong idea that 100% of all behavior can be explained as instinctive, learned, or both. This author might believe that some behavior is just random and can't be explained by either of those two ways (that wouldn't hurt their argument at all). Also, as the correct answer reminds us, in the case of the Kodiak bear the author is thinking that it's instinctive and not learned, so we have no reason to say that this author assumes behavior can be explained by both of these two ways.

    6% picked this

  5. The argument incorrectly appeals to

    Not Inappropriate Appeal Not a Flaw

    This answer choice refers to the famous Inappropriate Appeal flaw. The author's only evidence (i.e. the only thing they appealed to) was a fact about the hip shape and foot bones of the Kodiak bear. Is that first sentence appealing to "the authority of science"? No. Perhaps science was involved in helping us ascertain that the Kodiak's hips and feet make it a natural walker, but the sentence doesn't mention science at all and isn't appealing to its authority. Beyond the fact that this answer doesn't descriptively match the argument, we also might eliminate this answer by thinking, "what's wrong with appealing to science in order to support a conclusion?" Why would we ever object to an author by saying, "Hey, no fair ... you supported your conclusion with science!" It would have to be a conversation where science had no bearing, but the topic of whether a certain behavior is instinctive or learned is certainly within the purview of science.

    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