PrepTest 142

Incorrect. There are two possible ways this flaw could play out. The first is jumping from a few Kodiak bears to all Kodiak bears. However, the evidence is skeletal, which would be similar in all Kodiaks. The second is generalizing from Kodiak bears to all bears, but both the premise and conclusion are about Kodiaks. No matter how you analyze this answer, it's wrong.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
The Kodiak skeleton shows that standing/walking on 2 legs is natural. So this behavior is instinctive and not learned.

Answer Anticipation:
Certain behavior is "natural" and not learned—i.e., not "nurtured"? The LSAT will occasionally wade into the age-old debate of nature vs. nurture. Here, the argument looks at the skeleton of the Kodiak bear and determines that it's in the bear's nature to walk upright. From this, it concludes that the behavior is instinctual and not learned at all.

That's too extreme based on just skeletal evidence! While it does appear as if nature plays a role in this behavior, nurture might, as well—and the behavior might have a learned component. Let's find an answer that says both nature and nurture could play a part here.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the possibility that both nature and nurture play a role in the Kodiak walking upright. The argument, in concluding it's "instinctive and not a learned behavior," ignores that possibility and is thus flawed.

Key Takeaway:
There are some common pieces of content that the LSAT likes to revisit. One of them is the nature vs. nurture debate. When this comes up on the LSAT, the correct answer frequently brings up the possibility that both play a role in whatever phenomenon is raised in the stimulus.

Incorrect. Both the premise and conclusion use behavior to mean something the Kodiak does (walk upright), so the argument doesn't shift the meaning of that word.

Incorrect. First, the argument only deals with one behavior, so this answer is too broad in stating that it assumes something about all behavior. Second, the conclusion only discusses two explanations, but it doesn't state that no other explanations apply. Third, along this metric, it's hard to think of what would be a third explanation not already included in nature or nurture as far as a source of behavior, so it's not even clear that it's a flaw to assume that behavior derives from one of them.

Incorrect. Unless the argument is talking matter of the heart, science is the right authority to appeal to. This answer will almost never be correct on the LSAT.