PT34.S3.Q19 - Light is registered in the retina when

Comments

• 1 Like

  keets993 Alum Member ⭐ ⏰ 🍌

  July 2018 6045 karma

  Hey there,

  So the last sentence in the stimulus basically says that normal molecular motion sometimes causes rhopsodin molecules to change shape, which introduces error into the system (it's an error because they're changing shape despite not being hit by photons). Furthermore, the amount of this 'normal molecular motion' is directly proportional to to the temperature of the retina.

  So if we break it down some more, the motion is directly proportional to temperature of retina. So when you have high motion, it means that the temperature is higher. We also know that motion is linked to this error because the motion sometimes causes molecules to change shape. So if we know that temperature impacts the likelihood of motion, and we say that the likelihood of this motion is higher, then we can infer that the likelihood of the error goes up.

  Does that make sense?
• 1 Like

  s_jricke Alum Member

  July 2018 360 karma

  @cathy072015 said:
  I understand the last sentence of the stimulus which states that higher temperature = higher molecule movement. The second sentence states 'rhodopsin molecules sometimes change shape because of normal molecular motion, thereby introducing error into the visual system'. J.Y links this second sentence with the last sentence, stating that higher molecular movement = more error-prone. What I am confused about is how the second sentence shows this. As in for me, the second sentence seems to say that molecular motion = errors; it doesn't mention anything about more molecular movement equaling more errors. I must be missing some vital connection somewhere.

  Admin note: edited title
  https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-3-question-19/

  The correct AC only talks about the proneness to errors. I think you can make a commonsense assumption that if molecular motion = prone to errors then more molecular motion = more prone to those errors.

  Like, if getting in a car wreck makes one prone to breaking her or his neck, then someone who is involved in a lot of car wrecks is more prone to breaking her or his neck versus someone who has only been in one. It doesn't necessarily mean that the person in more car wrecks is guaranteed to have more neck injuries, but you can't deny she or he is more susceptible to such injuries.

  Or, like smoking makes one vulnerable to getting cancer and smoking a lot makes one more vulnerable.

  That's how I would justify the correct AC, but you can also get the correct answer for this question by process of elimination because the other choices are pretty terrible, in my opinion.