PrepTest 104, Section 1, Question 4
In Yasukawa's month-long study of blackbirds, the percentage(48 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(16 more words not shown)
- AYasukawa compared the(24 more words not shown)
- BYasukawa examined blackbirds(8 more words not shown)
- CYasukawa did not(13 more words not shown)
- DYasukawa noted that(13 more words not shown)
- EYasukawa noted that(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The smaller birds survived at a higher rate, but why? Perhaps they were better at hiding from predators. Perhaps they needed less food during a shortage. The critic offers another possibility: smaller blackbirds are generally younger, so age might explain the difference.
That sounds like a reasonable concern about a study that compares larger and smaller birds. To separate the explanations, I'd want to know whether Yasukawa accounted for age. Otherwise, a size difference might also be an age difference.
But keep the speakers straight. Yasukawa attributes the survival pattern to size. The author of the criticism says that conclusion is probably mistaken because of age.
What we’re looking for
This question asks us to show that the criticism rests on a misunderstanding of the research. My first prediction is that Yasukawa actually controlled for age, so the critic is objecting to a problem the study had already addressed. Let's look for a fact about what was compared that undermines the critic's account.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This isn't exactly the age-control fact I predicted. Instead, it reveals that the study compared a smaller species with a larger species, not differently sized members of a single species.
The critic treats smaller size as a sign of being younger. But an adult of a small species can be smaller than a young member of a large species. The size difference between the study's groups therefore needn't be the age difference the critic assumes.
A exposes a misunderstanding of what Yasukawa compared. It doesn't prove that age was perfectly controlled or that size is the only cause of survival. It shows why the critic's explanation of the result may not apply to this study.
- B
Studying birds in their natural habitat doesn't show whether the smaller birds were also younger. A researcher could account for age outdoors or fail to account for it in captivity. This changes the setting without showing that the critic misunderstood the relevant comparison.
- C
The question isn't whether blackbirds survive better than hawks or some other kind of bird. Both the study and the criticism concern differences among the blackbirds studied. Not comparing them with other kinds of birds doesn't show that the criticism confuses size with age.
- D
Winning more fights could matter to survival, but we don't know how important fighting was during this month. More importantly, the observation doesn't show that the critic misunderstood the ages of the groups. Larger birds could win more fights while age or some other factor still accounts for their lower overall survival. D leaves the stated criticism in place.
- E
A difference in social hierarchy doesn't establish whether the smaller birds were younger or show that the critic misread the study. We would need an explanation connecting that fact to the alleged age problem. Merely adding another difference between the groups doesn't supply one.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.