Top Law Schools

ok, so maybe this question just highlights my problem with over analyzing in RC, but can someone explain what i missed here? in the passage it says that the pigeons would just need to smell the air en route and/or at the final destination to find their way back home. if they are smelling the air en route and at the destination, couldn't they get home even if there were no discernable scents from home at the final destination (by flying back to places they smelled en route that would then be within their home's scent range)?

i am clearly making some kind of logical jump here that i'm not allowed to make, can someone point it out? any tips in general about how much one can infer from the passage? every question i get wrong on RC is either because a) i assumed too much from the passage b) i didn't assume enough from the passage trying to be safe or c) i got sloppy and made a silly mistake. i'm hitting -0 on LG and LR with some regularity, but have yet to do this on RC. RC has always been my strong suit, so it's really frustrating me. any advice is much appreciated!

Hi tdicks,

I'm a first time poster here but I thought I would take a crack at helping you since I am deep into studying for the LSAT too.

Your focus is on paragraph #3 since they introduces and explains Papi's theory: pigeons "map sense" is all about their sense of smell. They are able to map out their surroundings based on things that smell familiar. In choice (D) Papi's theory is weakened because it shows that pigeon's don't have to be near familiar smells.

This question is very much like weaken in LR -- finding that alternative explanation that weakens the argument, or in this case Papi's theory.