LSAT 142 – Section 4 – Question 08

LSAT 142 - Section 4 - Question 08

December 2014

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:56

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT142 S4 Q08
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
0%
148
B
93%
164
C
2%
158
D
4%
156
E
1%
153
129
138
148
 +Easier 147.564 +SubsectionMedium

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. Thus, walking on hind legs is instinctive and not a learned behavior of the Kodiak.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that walking on hind legs is instinctive for Kodiak bears and not a learned behavior. He supports this by saying that their bone structure makes walking upright completely natural for them.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that because it’s instinctive for Kodiak bears, walking on hind legs is not a learned behavior. He ignores the possibility that walking on hind legs might be both an instinctive and a learned behavior.

A
The argument incorrectly generalizes from the behavior of a few bears in support of its conclusion.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization, where the argument draws a broad conclusion based on too little evidence. The author doesn’t make this mistake; he draws a conclusion about the behavior of all Kodiaks based on a premise about the bones of all Kodiaks.

B
The argument fails to consider the possibility that walking on hind legs is the result of both learning and an innate capacity.

The author assumes that, because walking on hind legs is completely natural for Kodiak bears, it must not be a learned behavior. He fails to consider that it could be both an innate behavior due to the bears’ bone structure and also a learned behavior.

C
The word “behavior” illicitly changes meaning during the course of the argument.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the same term is used in different ways throughout the argument. The author doesn’t make this mistake; he uses the word “behavior” consistently and he clearly distinguished between “natural behavior” and “learned behavior.”

D
The argument presumes, without giving justification, that all behavior can be explained in one or both of only two ways.

The author isn’t addressing all behavior, only the bears’ behavior of walking on hind legs. Also, his mistake is that he assumes that walking on hind legs cannot be explained by both innate and learned behaviors.

E
The argument incorrectly appeals to the authority of science in order to support its conclusion.

The author relies on a scientific claim to support his conclusion, so his argument doesn’t incorrectly appeal to the authority of science.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 142 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply