- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue May 23, 2017 2:39 pm
#35295
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (A)
As in many LSAT stimuli regarding scientific experiments, there are a number of undisclosed
assumptions leading to the scientists’ conclusion. There are effectively two groups of owls being
compared here: owls wearing distorting lenses (group A), and owls which have previously worn
distorting lenses (group B). Owls in both groups act as if they misjudged the location of the source
of sounds, and although not addressed directly, it is clear that normal owls aren’t prone to these
mistakes. The scientists believe that owls in group B, whose vision is now undistorted by lenses,
have learned to ignore vision and are relying on a flawed auditory scheme for locating prey. The
assumption implied in this belief is that once the lenses are removed, the owls will be able to see
clearly. However, this is unknown and unproven. If the assumption is false, there would be an
alternative explanation for the persistent errors in group B.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer addresses one of the
undisclosed assumptions. Since the lenses were present during the owls’ developmental phase, it is
possible that removing them will not immediately yield normal sight. Perhaps the owls’ vision has
been permanently impaired and the owls in group B continue to rely on distorted vision to locate
sounds. It is a mistake to completely disregard a plausible alternative explanation and the reasoning
is vulnerable to this criticism.
Answer choice (B): This answer is related to the assumption that owls in group B (no longer wearing
distorted lenses) will regain normal vision, but the author does not need to believe that all owls have
equally good vision. The belief that owls have a normal distribution of eyesight from good to bad,
rather than identically good eyesight, has no effect on the author’s conclusion.
Answer choice (C): This answer is difficult to defend. It is unlikely that determining the source of a
sound can be legitimately deemed a “reasoning process” (although the stimulus does use words such
as “misjudged” and “estimated”). However, even if it were considered a reasoning process, there is
nothing particularly human about it. A huge variety of animals rely upon the ability to accurately
determine the source of a sound in order to survive.
Answer choice (D): Answer choice (D) fits a common pattern for incorrect answers to Flaw
question stems. While it is technically accurate that the argument neglects to consider the effect of
distorting lenses on other bird species, it is also irrelevant. The scope of the argument is consistently
narrow and the conclusion is only about barn owls. It is only a flaw to neglect an element which is
intrinsically vital to your argument.
Answer choice (E): This stimulus is admirably consistent and focused. Each sentence is relevant and
pertains to the behavior of barn owls. Although the authors ignore a plausible alternative explanation,
there are no issues with scope here. The evidence is relevant and the conclusion is competent,
although not complete or compelling.
Flaw in the Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (A)
As in many LSAT stimuli regarding scientific experiments, there are a number of undisclosed
assumptions leading to the scientists’ conclusion. There are effectively two groups of owls being
compared here: owls wearing distorting lenses (group A), and owls which have previously worn
distorting lenses (group B). Owls in both groups act as if they misjudged the location of the source
of sounds, and although not addressed directly, it is clear that normal owls aren’t prone to these
mistakes. The scientists believe that owls in group B, whose vision is now undistorted by lenses,
have learned to ignore vision and are relying on a flawed auditory scheme for locating prey. The
assumption implied in this belief is that once the lenses are removed, the owls will be able to see
clearly. However, this is unknown and unproven. If the assumption is false, there would be an
alternative explanation for the persistent errors in group B.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer addresses one of the
undisclosed assumptions. Since the lenses were present during the owls’ developmental phase, it is
possible that removing them will not immediately yield normal sight. Perhaps the owls’ vision has
been permanently impaired and the owls in group B continue to rely on distorted vision to locate
sounds. It is a mistake to completely disregard a plausible alternative explanation and the reasoning
is vulnerable to this criticism.
Answer choice (B): This answer is related to the assumption that owls in group B (no longer wearing
distorted lenses) will regain normal vision, but the author does not need to believe that all owls have
equally good vision. The belief that owls have a normal distribution of eyesight from good to bad,
rather than identically good eyesight, has no effect on the author’s conclusion.
Answer choice (C): This answer is difficult to defend. It is unlikely that determining the source of a
sound can be legitimately deemed a “reasoning process” (although the stimulus does use words such
as “misjudged” and “estimated”). However, even if it were considered a reasoning process, there is
nothing particularly human about it. A huge variety of animals rely upon the ability to accurately
determine the source of a sound in order to survive.
Answer choice (D): Answer choice (D) fits a common pattern for incorrect answers to Flaw
question stems. While it is technically accurate that the argument neglects to consider the effect of
distorting lenses on other bird species, it is also irrelevant. The scope of the argument is consistently
narrow and the conclusion is only about barn owls. It is only a flaw to neglect an element which is
intrinsically vital to your argument.
Answer choice (E): This stimulus is admirably consistent and focused. Each sentence is relevant and
pertains to the behavior of barn owls. Although the authors ignore a plausible alternative explanation,
there are no issues with scope here. The evidence is relevant and the conclusion is competent,
although not complete or compelling.