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
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?
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.
I was in the same boat because I assumed that if A was true -- the eyesight becoming permanently impaired -- then it would support the fact that the owls would be unable to use their eyesight, hence why the scientist's conclusion was right.
So I settled on E...but in hindsight, I see why it is wrong
I feel like I intuitively understand these questions. I will read the correct AC and then choose it immediately once I read it. Ik this is overconfidence, but why is it that some questions come easier to others because I FLOPPED on SA questions but my confidence is back.
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.
75 comments
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
Why LSAT writers so obsessed with questions about dead animals and animal abuse
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?
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.
This argument is a real hoot.
I don't think my statistics professor would have approved of this experiment.
Average Stanford ethics experiment
lmao
This is one cruel experiment
I only got this right because the study made me upset. How evil! haha. I guess attacking arguments really does work.
I was between A and E and decided wrongly sighs*
I was in the same boat because I assumed that if A was true -- the eyesight becoming permanently impaired -- then it would support the fact that the owls would be unable to use their eyesight, hence why the scientist's conclusion was right.
So I settled on E...but in hindsight, I see why it is wrong
I feel like I intuitively understand these questions. I will read the correct AC and then choose it immediately once I read it. Ik this is overconfidence, but why is it that some questions come easier to others because I FLOPPED on SA questions but my confidence is back.
Same here, seems like these types of questions come easier for me than more logic-based questions
wanted to pick B based on the fact that the experiment part could be messed up but went back to A in BR
im so mad for these owls...
Fuck these hypothetical scientists
spent 4 minutes on a 2 star question <3
</3
i got this wrong because i thought the right answer was almost too obvious and perfect lol