PrepTest 142

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Question—How do barn owls learn to identify direction of sound?
Experiment—Place distorting lenses on baby barn owls, then remove them when they got older
Results—The owls thought things were to the right of where they were, even after the lenses were removed
Conclusion—Once a barn owl develops a way to ID where sounds are, they stop using vision

Answer Anticipation:
Putting aside questions about what, exactly, the point of this whole thing was, we have a study done that's designed to answer a question, and it concludes a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an explanation for an observed phenomenon (subject to further testing), so we can approach this question as we do with any argument that falls into the phenomenon/explanation framework.

The phenomenon observed is that mature barn owls continue to act as if they are wearing distorting lenses even after they're removed. The explanation? Barn owls stopped using vision and are relying on an "auditory schema"—on their hearing—to identify the source of objects.

When we're dealing with phenomenon/explanation arguments, they're generally flawed in that they ignore other explanations. And when a stimulus raises a potential alternative explanation—even to rule it out—that's where we should start. Here, the conclusion states that the owls "cease[]" to use vision once they develop this auditory schema. But is that established by the evidence, or is it possible that they're using their vision? Maybe those lenses messed up the owls' eyes, and so that's why they keep flying to the right.

Any answer that highlights an alternative explanation or just that the argument is potentially ignoring an alternative explanation for the behavior will be correct.

Answer Explanation:
"Fails to consider" answers bring up something overlooked by the argument, and in an argument where we anticipated an alternative explanation could cause problems for the argument, it's a great start to an answer. This answer does bring up a potential alternative explanation for the behavior—their vision was permanently impaired, and thus that is why they keep flying to the right—so it points out why the reasoning is vulnerable.

Key Takeaway:
Experiments and hypotheses can be viewed through the phenomenon/explanation framework that we've seen time and time again. This framework generally has answers related to alternative explanations, which panned out here.

Incorrect. The premises and conclusion/hypothesis are just about barn owls, so it's not making assumptions about all owls. The argument doesn't even require all barn owls to have equally good—there could be variations that are all equally impacted by these lenses.

Incorrect. There's no indication that these owls are reasoning—it sounds like they're just reacting to external stimuli based on their senses.

Incorrect. Since the conclusion is about only barn owls, other bird species are out of scope.

Incorrect. The experiment is related to how barn owls locate sounds, and the conclusion is a hypothesis explaining a phenomenon in that space, so the experiment is relevant to the conclusion.