LSAT 142 – Section 1 – Question 21

LSAT 142 - Section 1 - Question 21

December 2014

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:11

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 S1 Q21
+LR
Evaluate +Eval
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Sampling +Smpl
A
8%
160
B
71%
165
C
15%
160
D
4%
158
E
2%
156
143
154
165
 +Harder 145.991 +SubsectionMedium

In a study, pairs of trained dogs were placed side by side and given a command such as “sit.” After both obeyed the command, one dog was given a treat while its partner was given no reward at all. Over time, the dogs who went unrewarded began to disobey the command. This shows that dogs have an aversion to being treated unfairly.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that dogs are averse to being treated unfairly. This is due to a study where dogs stopped obeying commands when they weren’t rewarded, but when their partner dog was rewarded with a treat.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that dogs have a concept of fairness. He also assumes that fairness plays a bigger role in dogs choosing not to follow commands than a simple lack of motivation stemming from the fact there’s no reward.

A
Were dogs who were accustomed to receiving regular rewards prior to the study more inclined to obey the command?
We have no idea if those dogs were the ones receiving treats or not. This tells us nothing about fairness.
B
Is there a decline in obedience if rewards are withheld from both dogs in the pair?
Neither dog received a reward, so the dogs were being treated fairly. If there was a decline in obedience, then it would seem dogs don’t object to unfairness—they just aren’t motivated without treats. If not, then the dogs evidently will obey commands without treats.
C
Were dogs who received treats in one trial ever used as dogs that did not receive treats in other trials?
Irrelevant. Even if those dogs were used twice, the fact would still stand they stopped obeying commands when they didn’t receive a reward. We need to assess the author’s explanation for why this happened.
D
Were there any cases in which the dog who was given a reward became more inclined to obey the command?
Even if there were cases where this happened, we care about the dogs who stopped obeying commands. The author isn’t speculating that dogs can become more motivated by rewards—he’s hypothesizing that dogs are averse to being treated unfairly.
E
How many repetitions were required before the unrewarded dogs began to disobey the command?
We don’t care how long it took for the dog to stop obeying commands. We’re interested in why they stopped obeying commands.

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