#4 - Scientist: Rattlesnakes prey on young California ground

[KelseyWoods]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen, Cause and Effect. The correct answer choice is (C).

This question asks us to support the scientist's hypothesis. So the first thing we need to do is clearly identify the scientist's hypothesis: the heating up of a squirrel's tail probably plays a role in repelling rattlesnakes. This is a causal hypothesis. The scientist posits that the heat in the squirrel's tail causes rattlesnakes to be repelled. To strengthen a causal relationship, we want to strengthen that relationship between the cause (hot squirrel tail) and the effect (repelled rattlesnakes).

Answer choice (A): Whether or not rattlesnakes have the ability to heat their tails up has nothing to do with the relationship between hot squirrel tails and repelled rattlesnakes that we're trying to strengthen.

Answer choice (B): Squirrels using their tails to attract other squirrels also has nothing to do with whether or not hot squirrel tails repel rattlesnakes so this answer choice does not strengthen our scientist's hypothesis.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice strengthens the causal relationship by showing us that rattlesnakes are much more repelled (the effect) in the presence of a hot squirrel tail (the cause) than when there is not hot squirrel tail (i.e., than when the cause is absent). It shows a clear link between the cause and the effect as stated in the stimulus, thus strengthening the scientist's hypothesis that hot squirrel tails play a role in repelling rattlesnakes.

Answer choice (D): Remember that we are only concerned with the causal relationship between hot squirrel tails and repelled rattlesnakes as described in the stimulus. This answer choice about other predators definitely doesn't strengthen the stimulus relationship and may even weaken it by suggesting that maybe the hot squirrel tails could be a defensive mechanism meant to scare off some other predator.

Answer choice (E): Whether or not mammals like the Cali ground squirrel have an organ for sensing infrared energy tells us nothing about whether or not rattlesnakes are repelled by hot squirrel tails.

[LAM]

I wanted to choose D but didn't because of the word 'defensively'. If an animal is defending themselves, they kill. Defending oneself would not cause them to be 'repelled' as the conclusion suggests but rather to kill. The use of 'defensively' would weaken the argument. Please help. Thanks in advance.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hey Lam,

Are you referring to (C)? In this case, (C) is the credited response and includes the word "defensively," which appears to be central to your question.

Briefly, your knowledge of zoology is actually an impediment here! Since the LSAT assumes no outside knowledge, there is no widespread expectation that students would infer that defensive behavior would lead to a fatal encounter. Instead, the test relies on the common understanding of "defensive" behavior, that it would involve pulling away from a dangerous situation.

In addition, there seems to be a bit of a semantic shift in your use of the verb "defending themselves" and the idea of "reacting defensively." In your use, you employ the concept of defense as a proactive behavior against an aggressor whereas in the LSAT's use of "reacting defensively" there is no implied indirect object of this defensive behavior.

You use a pronominal verb "defending" with an implied indirect object: "defending [oneself] against [something]"

The LSAT uses the verb "react" and uses "defensively" as an adverb to modify this verb.

The defend-as-a-verb construction does certainly imply more aggressive connotations, but the latter phrase "react defensively" could describe any number of situations, including the proverbial fight or flight scenarios.

The key for this question is not to bring too many outside assumptions or even outside knowledge into hypothetical LSAT scenarios. Instead, take the language at face value and ask yourself what the key issue is in a given question. Here, we are looking for an answer choice that tells us somehow that the snake cared about the tail! To wit, if I were a squirrel with a hot tail, I'd certainly want that snake to notice, because if the snake couldn't care less about by hot tail, it's going to eat me anyways.

At a minimum in an answer we want some connection between the snake's behavior and the squirrel's hot tail. Answer choice (C) does at the very least satisfy this criterion.

Great question!

[MrMola]

The conclusion is "The heating up of squirrel's tail probably plays a role in REPELLING rattlesnakes". I eliminated C because it said the rattlesnakes react DEFENSIVELY to the tail, but it did not repel them. Why is the way I thought about that wrong?

[Brook Miscoski]

MrMola,

Remember to use the fact that the LSAT is a multiple choice test. The stimulus proposes that the heated squirrel tail is repelling rattlesnakes, and we're asked to find a choice that strengthens that.

A. who cares about rattlesnake tails
B. who cares about other squirrels
C. reacting to something defensively (implies a wide range including slithering away) might mean the snake is repelled by it
D. who cares about other predators
E. who cares about other mammals

C is the only choice that is even remotely within the scope of relevance. Don't make a multiple choice test harder than it has to be--use your skills to identify Contenders and Losers.