LSAT 154 – Section 1 – Question 15

LSAT 154 - Section 1 - Question 15

September 2017

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:19

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT154 S1 Q15
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
1%
153
B
91%
163
C
4%
155
D
1%
155
E
3%
158
127
138
149
 +Easier 147.621 +SubsectionMedium

In the winter, ravens survive by eating carcasses; in fact, an individual raven may survive for weeks on one carcass. Yet, according to many reports, ravens will often recruit more ravens to help eat a carcass. This seemingly altruistic behavior struck Bernd Heinrich as being worthy of investigation. He set up observation blinds from which he had a clear view of an open meadow in which he placed meat. He found that the mated pair of ravens in whose territory the meadow was located laid exclusive claim to the meat; so, to avoid starvation, juvenile ravens—who do not yet have territories—had to assemble in groups large enough to drive the resident pair away from the meat.

There were many reports that ravens often recruit more ravens to help eat a carcass. This is counterintuitive, because it seems strange that a raven would be altruistic. Heinrich investigated this phenomenon. He observed a meadow where a mated pair of ravens laid exclusive claim to meat placed by Heinrich. Juvenile ravens had to group up to drive the mated pair away from the meat. (The implication is that ravens might share a carcass not out of altruism, but out of self-interest. The ravens might need to group up in order to access food.)

Describe Method of Reasoning
Heinrich investigated reports of ravens sharing a carcass. He found that this phenomenon might be due to juvenile ravens needing to group up to help get access to food.

A
He proposed two alternative hypotheses, each of which would explain a set of observations.
Heinrich did not propose any hypotheses. We only get a description of his experiment and the results.
B
His investigation partially confirmed prior observations but led to a radical reinterpretation of those observations.
His investigation confirmed prior observations (ravens indeed recruit others), but led to a radical reinterpretation (the reason ravens recruit others is not altruism, but self-interest; they need to group up to help access food belonging to older ravens).
C
He proposed a theory and then proceeded to confirm it through observation.
We don’t get any theory proposed by Heinrich. If you consider “altruism” to be Heinrich’s theory, then (C) is wrong because Heinrich did not confirm that the ravens were altruistic.
D
He used different methods from those used in earlier studies but arrived at the same conclusion.
We do not know what kinds of methods were used in earlier studies, or whether there were earlier studies. So we don’t know Heinrich used different methods.
E
His investigation replicated previous studies but yielded a more limited set of observational data.
We do not know whether there were previous studies or anything about the observational data in those studies. So we don’t know whether Heinrich replicated any studies or had a more limited set of data.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 154 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply