#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
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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 feel like he made the explanation of A unnecessarily complicated— to me, the most glaring error is that if the researchers captured and measured only the small-beaked birds at the end of the study, they would have also done so at the beginning of the study. Therefore, they were still probably observing the same population of birds over the three decades, so A isn't accounting for the decrease in beak size that occurred.
Remember that the stimulus never actually compares the beak size between the wild and captive bird populations, just the change in beak size within each population.
My HS biology teacher would be disappointed in me if I didn't get this one right
2
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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!
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.
112 comments
Didn't know that evolutionary changes can happen in 30 years? Seems ridiculous to assume that
#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
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.
C is a CRAZY assumption to make. I got rid of it almost instantly. This section actually sucks balls
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
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?
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!
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.
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?
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 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 feel like he made the explanation of A unnecessarily complicated— to me, the most glaring error is that if the researchers captured and measured only the small-beaked birds at the end of the study, they would have also done so at the beginning of the study. Therefore, they were still probably observing the same population of birds over the three decades, so A isn't accounting for the decrease in beak size that occurred.
Remember that the stimulus never actually compares the beak size between the wild and captive bird populations, just the change in beak size within each population.
Does anyone have tips on how to take notes for these videos?
My HS biology teacher would be disappointed in me if I didn't get this one right