PrepTest 154, Section 1, Question 15
In the winter, ravens survive by eating carcasses;(108 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AHe proposed two(11 more words not shown)
- BHis investigation partially(12 more words not shown)
- CHe proposed a(9 more words not shown)
- DHe used different(13 more words not shown)
- EHis investigation replicated(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why invite other ravens to eat food that could keep you alive for weeks?
There might be a practical benefit. Imagine finding a carcass too large to finish before it spoils. Sharing it wouldn't necessarily cost you food you could have used. And perhaps ravens that find food help one another: I share this time, and you share when you find the next carcass. That could serve the recruiting raven's own interests, rather than reflect pure generosity. These are possible explanations, not findings from the study.
Heinrich observes a different benefit. A resident pair claims the meat, and juveniles without territories cannot simply eat it. They assemble a group large enough to drive the pair away. Recruiting others helps the juveniles get access to food they otherwise couldn't obtain.
What we’re looking for
So the observed grouping isn't denied. What changes is our interpretation of it. The behavior looked like sharing food to benefit other birds; the study reveals cooperation that helps the recruiters themselves avoid starvation. For the description question, look for that combination: confirming part of what had been observed while changing how we understand it.
Working the answers
- A
We considered possible explanations while reading, but the passage doesn't say Heinrich proposed two hypotheses before conducting the study. It describes reports that interested him, his observation setup, and what he found. Don't transfer our own guesses to the researcher as steps he is said to have taken.
- BCorrect
The study confirms part of the earlier picture: ravens do assemble with other ravens around food. But the apparent generosity receives a different explanation. The juveniles need a group to displace the territorial pair and get something to eat themselves.
“Radical reinterpretation” can sound strong. Here it captures a real change from apparent selfless sharing to behavior with a direct survival benefit for the recruiting birds. We don't have to say the study disproves every possible instance of raven generosity. It substantially changes the interpretation of the behavior observed.
- C
The passage doesn't report Heinrich first stating a theory and then testing whether it was right. He thought the behavior merited investigation and arranged to observe it. The resulting explanation is not evidence that he had proposed that explanation beforehand.
- D
We aren't told the methods of earlier studies, so we can't claim that his methods differed from them. More importantly, his observations suggest a different interpretation from the apparent altruism that prompted his interest. D's “same conclusion” misses the central change.
- E
The earlier reports don't tell us what studies were performed or how. They could have come from formal research or more informal observation. We therefore cannot say Heinrich replicated their methods, and we have no basis for comparing the amount of data. E adds a research history the passage doesn't provide.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.