3/3 correct so far for these flawed reasoing questions! I feel like Neo from the Matrix when he first started learning how to control his digital environment.
A. CORRECT - If the lenses permanently impacted the sight of the barn owls, that would serve as an alternative explanation as to why the owls reacted to sound the way they did
B. never makes any assumptions about all owls
C. to me, it was never established that this was a strictly human reasoning process
@HenryLehmann I think @ryanpalmer1717 said it best---they're doing it on purpose to test how well you can compartmentalize emotions and focus on cold, hard facts.
Is anyone else feeling like the separation of these question types at this point is doing a little more harm than good? I over thought this one thinking about how "differently" should be approaching this question from a flaw question...
Lets pretend B said all barn owls. Doesn't this rely on the idea that barn owls can all see to similar extents? if they are given glasses that mess with their vision then they have to all have similar vision? I felt like choice A relied on the assumption in B, they have to be able to see if their vision is to be distorted?
@lsatdemon2 I would agree if B was referring to only barn owls, but like you said, it didn't. Choice A dosen't rely on the assumption of B about "all owls" because this is only focused on Barn Owls.
My one qualm with this question was answer choice E. The video discounted this choice fairly quickly but I think it had some legs. The fact that the movement was not corrected does not show you anything conclusive about whether the visual system was actually utilized or not, which is why I think E could be possible. I had to work with the actual experiment this prompt is about in a class, so maybe I am just infusing too much of my own prior experience into an otherwise "more simple" question.
PS in the actual experiment the vision corrected back but sound did not smh
@danlyadov I totally agree with you. The experiment does not directly mention testing if vision to locate sounds, or how the scientist knows it is using an auditory scheme. I didn't know about this experiment prior to this, but I am a STEM student so maybe this is why I also overthought this question. I was in between A and E due to this.
For E, I think the uncertainty about whether the scientists had the right assumptions for their hypothesis to link vision and hearing shows that the evidence was notirrelevant to the conclusion. It might not be the right conclusion to come to from the evidence, but the evidence was at least relevant to the hypothesis.
93 comments
3/3 correct so far for these flawed reasoing questions! I feel like Neo from the Matrix when he first started learning how to control his digital environment.
Is it just me or the video explaining why the wrong answers were wrong ended abruptly without speaking about AC C, D, E?
@deji just you.
I genuinely feel so bad for the poor baby owls
@AliaAli Lol yea - was thinking the same.
Fat cat and owls both getting done wrong
this is why i'm going to law school, to get justice for these owls.
Not me becoming emotional thinking about the barn owls who had their vision distorted due to this study.
Justice for the barn owls!
I saw the long stimulus I did not think when I started it was going to end up talking about blind owls hahaha
Chat this is a real study from 1989.
@WilRothman I'm not even a little surprised. Because they've let them do worse.
I came for discussion but stayed for how disappointed everyone is on this question type.
THE POOR OWL :(
is it just me or is this way harder than a 2 difficulty question
A. CORRECT - If the lenses permanently impacted the sight of the barn owls, that would serve as an alternative explanation as to why the owls reacted to sound the way they did
B. never makes any assumptions about all owls
C. to me, it was never established that this was a strictly human reasoning process
D. were not worried about other bird species
E. the evidence wasn’t irrelevant
@TiaraFulcher Love how you are breaking down each question, this is how my head is sounding when going through the answers!
Why LSAT writers so obsessed with questions about dead animals and animal abuse
@HenryLehmann I think @ryanpalmer1717 said it best---they're doing it on purpose to test how well you can compartmentalize emotions and focus on cold, hard facts.
This reminds me of when I used to cross my eyes and everyone would say they'll get stuck like that.
Is anyone else feeling like the separation of these question types at this point is doing a little more harm than good? I over thought this one thinking about how "differently" should be approaching this question from a flaw question...
Lets pretend B said all barn owls. Doesn't this rely on the idea that barn owls can all see to similar extents? if they are given glasses that mess with their vision then they have to all have similar vision? I felt like choice A relied on the assumption in B, they have to be able to see if their vision is to be distorted?
@lsatdemon2 I would agree if B was referring to only barn owls, but like you said, it didn't. Choice A dosen't rely on the assumption of B about "all owls" because this is only focused on Barn Owls.
Lmao, I'm glad there's a lot of comments agreeing with me about how fucked up this experiment sounds.
I found this easier than the previous ones. I treated it like a weaken question. Lol I thought J.Y. was was trying to trick us
didn't catch b says ALL owls but thankfully even if it says all barn owls is not correct !
poor animals
my worst enemy is reading the answer choices incorrectly.
the rare animal-cruelty LSAT question type...
why is this experiment lowkey evil
@anniethach made me pissed
My one qualm with this question was answer choice E. The video discounted this choice fairly quickly but I think it had some legs. The fact that the movement was not corrected does not show you anything conclusive about whether the visual system was actually utilized or not, which is why I think E could be possible. I had to work with the actual experiment this prompt is about in a class, so maybe I am just infusing too much of my own prior experience into an otherwise "more simple" question.
PS in the actual experiment the vision corrected back but sound did not smh
@danlyadov I totally agree with you. The experiment does not directly mention testing if vision to locate sounds, or how the scientist knows it is using an auditory scheme. I didn't know about this experiment prior to this, but I am a STEM student so maybe this is why I also overthought this question. I was in between A and E due to this.
For E, I think the uncertainty about whether the scientists had the right assumptions for their hypothesis to link vision and hearing shows that the evidence was not irrelevant to the conclusion. It might not be the right conclusion to come to from the evidence, but the evidence was at least relevant to the hypothesis.
@JDMarathon this was helpful, thanks
This argument is a real hoot.