Q11 - It is well known that many species adapt

[mkd000]

I know this is a "main point" question, and so we don't need to go looking for the gap in the argument in the stimulus. But just for fun, I am doing just that. Would you say the gap in the argument is that just because altering the environment for their own survival is something that is common, it does not mean that the assumption (that altering the environment for their own survival is something that only the most highly evolved species do) is false? Yes, I have awkwardly phrased this question, but if someone could help me with this question it could be of great benefit to me.

thanks

[rinagoldfield]

Hi Mkd000! It sounds like you are studying in a really thorough way – finding the assumption is always smart.

I think this an overall pretty strong argument. It basically goes like this:

Plankton alter their environment, for example
-->
Not only the most highly evolved species alter their environment

One item I see that could be construed as an assumption is whether plankton are highly evolved or not. While in real life we know they are not highly evolved, the argument never explicitly states that.

Also, I think you're right that “not limited to the most highly evolved species” is not the same as “common.”

--Rina

[MelisU651]

One item I see that could be construed as an assumption is whether plankton are highly evolved or not. While in real life we know they are not highly evolved, the argument never explicitly states that.

This is exactly why I came here! This question did not give me much trouble at first, but reviewing it later really made me question the right answer, since it assumes something that is not present in the stimulus! I thought we weren't supposed to use our outside knowledge. So assuming that plankton is not a highly evolved species feels like a stretch to me, given that it is not provided anywhere in the stimulus.

Or an explanation of why C is correct could be that the question requires us to make that inference from the wording in the stimulus - which would not necessarily constitute an outside assumption. But I have trouble seeing it this way.

Any thoughts on this would be helpful as I feel like I'm worrying too much over a simple question-yikes.

[ohthatpatrick]

You don't really need outside knowledge to understand what's being implied; I think if we're just paying attention to the rhetorical function of "However" and "for example", we're good to go.

If I say:
It's usually assumed that only expensive jewelry would make a good gift for Jenny. However, there are lots of things you could buy her. Certain figurines, for example, .....

Do we know whether or not these 'figurines' qualify as expensive jewelry?
Sure. It's implied by the context that we're supplying a counterexample to the assumed rule.
There would be no contrast that merits a "however" if we were still talking about expensive jewelry.

Similarly, when we see the "However" in the 2nd sentence, it's clear from the rhetorical function that the author is disagreeing with the claim that "only highly evolved alter environment in self-benefiting ways".

Thus, it's clear our author is committing herself to the claim that
"Some species that alter environment in self-benefiting ways are NOT highly evolved"

And if she follows that idea by saying, "For example, plankton ..."
then we already understand the role that plankton is intended to play in this conversation.

Hope this helps.