LSAT 74, Logical Reasoning II, Q8

QUESTION TEXT: Given the shape of the hip and foot bones of the…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Kodiak bears instinctively know how to walk on their hind legs. They don’t need to learn.

REASONING: The shape of Kodiak bear hip and feet bones make it natural for the bears to stand on their hind legs.

ANALYSIS: This is a very bad argument. Humans are suited to walking upright, but we still have to learn. Walking isn’t quite an instinct with us. Something can be both innate and learned.

___________

1. The argument doesn’t mention any specific bears. Instead, it talks about the bones of the bear population as a whole.
   Example of flaw: This Kodiak bear had an enormous nose. So all Kodiak bears must have enormous noses.
2. CORRECT. In real life there’s often no “either/or”. A lot of things have multiple causes. It’s possible that Kodiak bears have the innate structure to walk on their hind legs, but they also need to learn to do so.
3. I checked my dictionary. “Behavior” only really has one definition. There answer could never be true for the word “behavior”. If you pick an answer that says a definition changed, you need to be very sure what the two different definitions are.
   Example of flaw: Glasses are useful for drinking, so these reading glasses I got from my optometrist must be useful for drinking.
4. The argument wasn’t talking about all behavior. The author only gave an opinion about Kodiak bears. This answer doesn’t accurately describe the argument.
   Example of flaw: I believe that all behavior can only be described in one or both of two ways. I have no evidence for this claim.
5. There was no appeal to authority.
   Example of flaw: My uncle Bob said Kodiak bears walk by instinct. He’s smart, so he must be right.

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---