I felt like A and B are immediately eliminated. No need to go through any logic.. 1. A and B are opposite of each other which means..."if one is helping, then the other one is helping too." But we only need one answer, so I don't need to think about the math, they're both wrong. 2. It says two populations: one wild, the other captive. If A or B is true, then why are they the wild ones??if they're so easy to capture, then they fall into the captive ones...
@LSATTAKER It's outside knowledge, but just to challenge your claim that it's ridiculous, this is precisely what Charles Darwin's The Origin of the Species was about--changes in beak size in Galapagos finches over even a shorter period of time. Selective pressure can (and often does) change populations very rapidly. The population of bacteria can change dramatically if exposed to an antibiotic. Initially, very small numbers of the population might carry an allele for resistance to the antibiotic. This allele rapidly becomes the most common in the population.
#Help: To me, it seems easy to eliminate A and B because being easy to capture does not explain or resolve why beaks would shrink. It feels like an obscure, illogical reason to assume something would physically shrink due to one niche factor that does not threaten the species as a whole.
My process looked like this:
Two populations of birds were tracked:
Wild population → went down
Captive population → not affected
We need to explain why the wild birds’ beaks got smaller but the captive birds’ beaks did not.
A) Why would this explain anything? Being easy to capture does not explain why beak size would decrease.
B) Same issue as A. Why would we care about how easy or hard they are to capture? That does not connect to beak reduction.
C) This seems possible. If a certain beak size was favored in the wild, they would begin to adapt. The captive birds did not need to hunt or change, while the wild birds did.
D) This does not resolve the issue and does not address the other side.
E) Ok cool and what would that do to resolve/.explain why they changed in size
To me, this seems like the most logical way to approach the question. Did others have a different experience?
I didn't think that the mention of small/large beaked birds had an impact on the statement given that was never mentioned on the text. This one really confused me
I got this one right, but for a different reason. I immediately eliminated A and B because it mentioned "big beaked" birds, but in the stimulus it is only talking about average-sized beaked birds and a population that beaks have shrunk. So therefore A and B are wrong because there are no "big-beaked" birds. Is this another assumption we are making?
someone please explain to me like a 5 yr old. these questions will be the death of me. I cant focus on the "assumption" that we have to make. my assumptions are different than JY's. what are we doing with that. I havent gotten any question right in RRE and EXCEPT
@legallyhaya What helps me is to as a "why" question that bridges the gap between the facts. In this case, "why are the beaks of wild birds shrinking in relation to captive birds?" My initial assumption was that there was an external component that favoured smaller birds and lo and behold, that was the right answer.
I've been where you are though, and I can tell you that if you stick to it, it'll make more sense eventually!
A is also wrong temporally. It doesnt state that its easier to catch them after, meaning A says that it would always be the case that the small beaked birds are harder to catch so the size shouldnt change or numbers related to that size.
I was close on A but realizing it was also temporally wrong told me it was not the correct choice since it could apply to before and after.
@EthanSegerman Why is it crazy? Maybe these birds only eat worms or bugs that hide in trees, and the birds with fat-ass beaks physically can't access the hidey holes where their food lives like small beak birds can
I think its weird that no one is talking about Darwinism and survival of the fittest. I hunted for C in this case, because I already thought that something apart of the wild birds environment was naturally selecting these small birds. Some people are saying thats a large assumption, but when we did the theory part of RRE questions, it said to lean in when you understand the concept. I dont know anything about bird species, but middle school science did help me go into hunt mode for this question!
Is it safe to say that A is also wrong because even if they captured more small beaked birds than long, it would not DECREASE, but just stay at the relatively same size. What we needed to explain was why the beak size of wild birds decreased, while that of captive birds did not change. #feedback
@zmilia17 totally not sure, but I would think a couple assumptions could easily make it true that only catching small beaked birds of a population (and then only using those values to get the average) would make it look like the average beak size of wild birds is smaller than avg beak size of captive birds. Even if both populations did have equal avg beak sizes, recorded averages could differ if only small beaked birds were included in wild bird beak average, because there would be lots of beak size variation included in the average of the captive pop, raising its average, and less variation in the wild pop (only those on the small side are included), lowering its average. .......... I didn't trust A because it assumes that a fact presented in the question stem is wrong. I just thought that since it challenges the validity of a fact presented, it might be faulty somehow, so I kept reading the other answers and liked the one about selective pressure better....
I got the question right. Just curious though: if choice A had said "The small-beaked wild birds were easier to capture and measure than the large-beaked wild birds and researchers tend to prefer hassle-free methods of data capture" - would choice A be correct?
I think than you also need to show why there was a trend. If they prefer hassle-free methods of data capture why has the numbers changed? Why didn't they just capture small-beaked wild birds from the beginning of their research? So I guess "The small-beaked wild birds were easier to capture and measure than the large-beaked wild birds and researchers started to prefer hassle-free methods of data capture during second part of the research" would be the right choice
is anyone else struggling with this section?? maybe I need to take a reset and come back to the questions but I'm barely getting any of the question sets correct :/
C is making no sense to me. It is a giant assumption to think that their beak sizes are in contrast to their survival rates. I think that is a huge jump; I read C and got rid of it instantly.
In this question type, we are taking the answer choices as true. C states that the survival of small-beaked birds was favored over large-beaked birds due to changes in food supply. That is, smaller beaks provided an evolutionary advantage for the wild birds. The wild birds with longer beaks presumably had a more difficult time obtaining necessary nutrients as the food supply changed, and it is a reasonable assumption that they did not live as long, did not reproduce at the same rate, or some other phenomenon that lead to proportionally more wild birds with shorter beaks by the end of the study period. Thus, the average beak size decreased.
Its not an assumption because in RRE all answers are true!
However C is the only one that answers the question: Why is the average beak size smaller than it was 30 years ago for wild birds?
It is because the food supply has changed and now favours the survival of small beaks. This means in survival of the fittest there will be fewer birds with larger beaks. Which answers our question.
here is my thinking; i could be flawed in my reasoning here...but thought i would share
the stimulus alludes to the gap in the argument about why, even though they studied the same species of birds, the captured ones didn't change. an inference that could be made is climate, evolution, or necessity to survive.
an analogy i made is to useless human body parts. over time we dont need some like appendix (dont quote my gr.9 bio). similarly, birds over time in the wild needed to evolve to adapt to their habitat. say their beak was too big to fit in tree burrows to gather food, over time the size would decrease right?
and in comparison to the other answers it MOST makes sense. as the other answers alluded to the capture of 2 different species..
I feel like C is kinda incomplete because we must make an absolute assumption that just because the food supply FAVORED their survival actually had a real effect on their survival... right?
I really don't know what I'm doing wrong but I'm seriously not getting any of these questions. Is there a method that I can try? I'm seriously lost.#feedback
I find taking my time reading the stim and really understanding each answer choice helps me answer correctly and relatively on time. I think at the end of it just requires a lot of practice and use of POE till you start to recognize the baits and how to process diff types of questions. Have grace ! Just keep practising and really understand why you got the question wrong and why the correct answer is right in order to train your way of thinking .
Researcher: Over the course of three decades, we kept records of the average beak size of two populations of the same species of bird, one wild population, the other captive.
During this period, the average beak size of the captive birds did not change, while the average beak size of the wild birds decreased significantly.
I'm not expecting an answer to this as most of my questions go unanswered, but I was hoping the group could maybe chime in...I picked the correct answer (C), mainly due to the fact that food sources entered my mind while reading the problem. HOWEVER, I still am not entirely comfortable with this choice, as it's citing SURVIVAL and not changes to the wild birds' bodies. How do we not assume for instance, that the wild birds that survived were stronger birds with bigger beaks? This leads me to my next paradox...assumptions & presuppositions.
From the start of RRE questions, we were told to "F your feelings" (I'm paraphrasing & half kidding) and focus on what's in the stimuli. But based on the explanations in this video, there was a WHOLE LOT of presupposing going on!
I believe its because we are looking for an answer that could explain why the average beak size of wild birds decreased. It may not be a super strong answer, but its by far the best option available.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
117 comments
I made an assumption that the answer was going to mention food even before reading the answer choices! That was cool, haha!
I hate that some questions seem so simple like this and others seem impossible.
I felt like A and B are immediately eliminated. No need to go through any logic.. 1. A and B are opposite of each other which means..."if one is helping, then the other one is helping too." But we only need one answer, so I don't need to think about the math, they're both wrong. 2. It says two populations: one wild, the other captive. If A or B is true, then why are they the wild ones??if they're so easy to capture, then they fall into the captive ones...
Didn't know that evolutionary changes can happen in 30 years? Seems ridiculous to assume that
@LSATTAKER It's outside knowledge, but just to challenge your claim that it's ridiculous, this is precisely what Charles Darwin's The Origin of the Species was about--changes in beak size in Galapagos finches over even a shorter period of time. Selective pressure can (and often does) change populations very rapidly. The population of bacteria can change dramatically if exposed to an antibiotic. Initially, very small numbers of the population might carry an allele for resistance to the antibiotic. This allele rapidly becomes the most common in the population.
#Help: To me, it seems easy to eliminate A and B because being easy to capture does not explain or resolve why beaks would shrink. It feels like an obscure, illogical reason to assume something would physically shrink due to one niche factor that does not threaten the species as a whole.
My process looked like this:
Two populations of birds were tracked:
Wild population → went down
Captive population → not affected
We need to explain why the wild birds’ beaks got smaller but the captive birds’ beaks did not.
A) Why would this explain anything? Being easy to capture does not explain why beak size would decrease.
B) Same issue as A. Why would we care about how easy or hard they are to capture? That does not connect to beak reduction.
C) This seems possible. If a certain beak size was favored in the wild, they would begin to adapt. The captive birds did not need to hunt or change, while the wild birds did.
D) This does not resolve the issue and does not address the other side.
E) Ok cool and what would that do to resolve/.explain why they changed in size
To me, this seems like the most logical way to approach the question. Did others have a different experience?
why do i always get the easy ones wrong omgg
I didn't think that the mention of small/large beaked birds had an impact on the statement given that was never mentioned on the text. This one really confused me
I got this one right, but for a different reason. I immediately eliminated A and B because it mentioned "big beaked" birds, but in the stimulus it is only talking about average-sized beaked birds and a population that beaks have shrunk. So therefore A and B are wrong because there are no "big-beaked" birds. Is this another assumption we are making?
Idk why but this one seemed more confusing than the other ones to me
someone please explain to me like a 5 yr old. these questions will be the death of me. I cant focus on the "assumption" that we have to make. my assumptions are different than JY's. what are we doing with that. I havent gotten any question right in RRE and EXCEPT
@legallyhaya What helps me is to as a "why" question that bridges the gap between the facts. In this case, "why are the beaks of wild birds shrinking in relation to captive birds?" My initial assumption was that there was an external component that favoured smaller birds and lo and behold, that was the right answer.
I've been where you are though, and I can tell you that if you stick to it, it'll make more sense eventually!
@RyanAlexander Thanks! that did help thou
A is also wrong temporally. It doesnt state that its easier to catch them after, meaning A says that it would always be the case that the small beaked birds are harder to catch so the size shouldnt change or numbers related to that size.
I was close on A but realizing it was also temporally wrong told me it was not the correct choice since it could apply to before and after.
@AutonomousTacticalTheory Thank you! I got it immediately after reading your explanation
C is a CRAZY assumption to make. I got rid of it almost instantly. This section actually sucks balls
@EthanSegerman Why is it crazy? Maybe these birds only eat worms or bugs that hide in trees, and the birds with fat-ass beaks physically can't access the hidey holes where their food lives like small beak birds can
I think its weird that no one is talking about Darwinism and survival of the fittest. I hunted for C in this case, because I already thought that something apart of the wild birds environment was naturally selecting these small birds. Some people are saying thats a large assumption, but when we did the theory part of RRE questions, it said to lean in when you understand the concept. I dont know anything about bird species, but middle school science did help me go into hunt mode for this question!
@kaileygroess17 God you helped me!
@kaileygroess17 that's a great point!
Is it safe to say that A is also wrong because even if they captured more small beaked birds than long, it would not DECREASE, but just stay at the relatively same size. What we needed to explain was why the beak size of wild birds decreased, while that of captive birds did not change. #feedback
@zmilia17 totally not sure, but I would think a couple assumptions could easily make it true that only catching small beaked birds of a population (and then only using those values to get the average) would make it look like the average beak size of wild birds is smaller than avg beak size of captive birds. Even if both populations did have equal avg beak sizes, recorded averages could differ if only small beaked birds were included in wild bird beak average, because there would be lots of beak size variation included in the average of the captive pop, raising its average, and less variation in the wild pop (only those on the small side are included), lowering its average. .......... I didn't trust A because it assumes that a fact presented in the question stem is wrong. I just thought that since it challenges the validity of a fact presented, it might be faulty somehow, so I kept reading the other answers and liked the one about selective pressure better....
I got the question right. Just curious though: if choice A had said "The small-beaked wild birds were easier to capture and measure than the large-beaked wild birds and researchers tend to prefer hassle-free methods of data capture" - would choice A be correct?
I think than you also need to show why there was a trend. If they prefer hassle-free methods of data capture why has the numbers changed? Why didn't they just capture small-beaked wild birds from the beginning of their research? So I guess "The small-beaked wild birds were easier to capture and measure than the large-beaked wild birds and researchers started to prefer hassle-free methods of data capture during second part of the research" would be the right choice
please LSAT Gods give me 1-2 star MAX questions in this section on the real LSAT in August 2025.. it has been so intense.. have mercy!
Finally someone feels my struggle with this section. It contradicts itself constantly. No logic seems to work like I have to rely on my intuition.
is anyone else struggling with this section?? maybe I need to take a reset and come back to the questions but I'm barely getting any of the question sets correct :/
Praying SO HARD that this type of question is not on my test.
C is making no sense to me. It is a giant assumption to think that their beak sizes are in contrast to their survival rates. I think that is a huge jump; I read C and got rid of it instantly.
More birds with larger beaks dying = fewer of them able to be captured for the study. That is why the average beak size decreased.
In this question type, we are taking the answer choices as true. C states that the survival of small-beaked birds was favored over large-beaked birds due to changes in food supply. That is, smaller beaks provided an evolutionary advantage for the wild birds. The wild birds with longer beaks presumably had a more difficult time obtaining necessary nutrients as the food supply changed, and it is a reasonable assumption that they did not live as long, did not reproduce at the same rate, or some other phenomenon that lead to proportionally more wild birds with shorter beaks by the end of the study period. Thus, the average beak size decreased.
Its not an assumption because in RRE all answers are true!
However C is the only one that answers the question: Why is the average beak size smaller than it was 30 years ago for wild birds?
It is because the food supply has changed and now favours the survival of small beaks. This means in survival of the fittest there will be fewer birds with larger beaks. Which answers our question.
here is my thinking; i could be flawed in my reasoning here...but thought i would share
the stimulus alludes to the gap in the argument about why, even though they studied the same species of birds, the captured ones didn't change. an inference that could be made is climate, evolution, or necessity to survive.
an analogy i made is to useless human body parts. over time we dont need some like appendix (dont quote my gr.9 bio). similarly, birds over time in the wild needed to evolve to adapt to their habitat. say their beak was too big to fit in tree burrows to gather food, over time the size would decrease right?
and in comparison to the other answers it MOST makes sense. as the other answers alluded to the capture of 2 different species..
I feel like C is kinda incomplete because we must make an absolute assumption that just because the food supply FAVORED their survival actually had a real effect on their survival... right?
Sure, but that's a reasonable assumption and the question language is "most helps to explain..." so it does not have to be an ideal answer.
lol i need more sleep, i thought we were talking about actual beak sizes and not populations
freshman bio knowledge clocked in
I really don't know what I'm doing wrong but I'm seriously not getting any of these questions. Is there a method that I can try? I'm seriously lost.#feedback
I find taking my time reading the stim and really understanding each answer choice helps me answer correctly and relatively on time. I think at the end of it just requires a lot of practice and use of POE till you start to recognize the baits and how to process diff types of questions. Have grace ! Just keep practising and really understand why you got the question wrong and why the correct answer is right in order to train your way of thinking .
i needed this win so bad
Researcher: Over the course of three decades, we kept records of the average beak size of two populations of the same species of bird, one wild population, the other captive.
During this period, the average beak size of the captive birds did not change, while the average beak size of the wild birds decreased significantly.
I'm not expecting an answer to this as most of my questions go unanswered, but I was hoping the group could maybe chime in...I picked the correct answer (C), mainly due to the fact that food sources entered my mind while reading the problem. HOWEVER, I still am not entirely comfortable with this choice, as it's citing SURVIVAL and not changes to the wild birds' bodies. How do we not assume for instance, that the wild birds that survived were stronger birds with bigger beaks? This leads me to my next paradox...assumptions & presuppositions.
From the start of RRE questions, we were told to "F your feelings" (I'm paraphrasing & half kidding) and focus on what's in the stimuli. But based on the explanations in this video, there was a WHOLE LOT of presupposing going on!
I believe its because we are looking for an answer that could explain why the average beak size of wild birds decreased. It may not be a super strong answer, but its by far the best option available.