LSATHacks
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
LSAT Explanations › Preptest 107 › Reading Comprehension › Question 19

LSAT 107 | Section 2 | Reading Comprehension: Q19

LSAT Preptest 107 explanations

RC Question 19 Explanation

DISCUSSION: Lines 42-47 talk about Scheich’s method. He used a battery to create an electrical field and attract a platypus. Normally, a platypus wouldn’t hunt something made of metal. So that let Scheich test whether electricity was enough to attract a platypus.

Abstractly put, the method is: simulate something natural, to test whether an animal behaves like you think it will.

There’s one further, crucial element. The battery isn’t at all like something the platypus would normally hunt. So we can be sure the platypus is attracted to the electricity and not to anything else.

Obviously, it’s surprising that a platypus would attack a battery. They can’t eat batteries.

Many wrong answers feature animals attacking realistic decoys. That isn’t surprising.

___________

  1. If the decoys were good enough, it’s only natural that birds would be attracted to them. 
  2. The tape plays copies of actual bird cries. It’s natural that birds could be fooled. 
  3. CORRECT. There’s no reason that the animal would go near the object, unless the animal were attracted purely by heat. 
  4. Same as A. If the replicas are good enough, it’s not surprising that fish are attracted to them. 
  5. There’s nothing unusual about an animal being lured by meat. 
Previous Question
↑ Return to PT 107
Next Question
Quick Jump PT Section Que

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

I scored a 177 on the LSAT. I founded LSATHacks and created the LSAT Mastery Seminars to help students succeed.

I’ve personally written explanations for 5,000+ LSAT questions. If you find these explanations helpful, you'll definitely like our courses.

Join my email list for LSAT study tips and resources.

Comments

  1. Rob says

    October 30, 2021 at 4:10 am

    Although I appreciate the reasoning clarifying why (c) is the correct answer, I was a bit hesitant at first because I was afraid the thematic similarity between (c) and the stimulus might be a red herring. In parallel reasoning questions for LR, for instance, I’ve noticed that answers that bear a strong thematic affinity to the stimulus tend to be incorrect “traps.” However, on RC, should we be more attuned to the content rather than the structure of different answer choices when asked to infer similar/parallel strategies? Thank you!

    Reply
    • Orion (LSATHacks) says Member

      November 15, 2021 at 5:17 pm

      Red herrings are certainly possible in RC as well! But the content is often more relevant in RC because there is so much more context in a RC passage that can be relevant to the answer – in this case, the important context is that the “prey” has no similarities to actual platypus food other than its electrical energy.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Free LSAT Email Course

My best LSAT tips, straight to your inbox

Increase Your Score

LSATHacks Courses Aiming For The 170S? See exactly how a top scorer thinks INCREASE YOUR SCORE
“The seminars teach you how to think like a high-scorer so that you can choose the correct answer quickly.” — Jay
“Not only did my score improve but I was able to approach LR with utter confidence” — Kacie L.

Resources

  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Free Email Course
  • LSAT Preptest Converter
  • Experimental Section Checker
  • LSAT Prep Books

About LSATHacks

  • About/Contact
  • Courses
  • Free Trial

Community

  • Discord
  • Social Media
  • Webinars
Disclaimer: Use of these explanations requires official LSAT preptests. LSAT is a registered trademark of LSAC.
LSAC does not review or endorse specific test preparation materials or services and has not reviewed this site.

© Copyright 2026 LSATHacks. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy | Terms