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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly