Q11

[LSAT-Chang]

Could someone please explain how (A) is the correct answer? This was my thought process:

(A) - "ANY" theory??? WAY too strong! We are only told of inclusive fitness theory! In fact, line 6 tells us literally that this is "ONE reponse to this question is offered by the inclusive fitness theory" -- so there is room for better ones out there! We don't know! We can't say "ANY" theory!

(E) - I picked this answer choice because this last sentence seemed relevant to the next paragraph in a way that it sort of introduces this "other reason why organisms recognize kin." In this last sentence, we are told that a cannibal tadpole, when hungry, is less likely to avoid eating kin apparently putting its ownself ahead of its siblings, and this relates to the next paragraph in that kin recognition can be explained simply as a means by which an organism preserves its OWN life, not as a means to aid in relatives survival! So I thought this was the main idea in the passage (just like how the correct answer choice to Q8 illustrates this idea) -- so (E) seemed correct in that this behavior is more relevant to the issue at hand (since this is hinting at this "other reason" why organisms recognize kin).

I was very shocked to learn that I got this Q wrong.. I would really appreciate anyone's help!!!!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question!

I'm glad you're vigilant when it comes to extreme modifiers, but in this case, you took your vigilance too far.

The second paragraph gives an account of how inclusive fitness theory purports to explain kin recognition. Tadpoles, for example, benefit by not eating their own kin. The last line, however, complicates the issue: it turns out that the tadpoles might bend the rules a little when they're extra hungry.

(A) is correct because it describes how the line in question complicates the facts. The "any" is fine, here, because any theory will have to account for the same facts, whether it's inclusive fitness theory or whatever. Does that make sense? It might sound extreme, but it's valid. It's as if I discovered that gravity gets weaker on Thursdays. ANY theory of physics will have to explain that.

(B) is incorrect because we never compare the tadpoles with other species.

(C) is the opposite of what's going on; this last line goes against what the rest of the paragraph describes.

(D) is out because the passage doesn't suggest that the behavior is "unexplainable." In fact, it offers an explanation.

(E) is incorrect because there is no indication that this behavior is more relevant. In fact, it seems more like an aside, a little "by the way," compared to the rest of the paragraph, which is much more in depth.

Does that answer your question?

[mk180]

Just want to confirm if my reasoning for why E is incorrect is valid: I eliminated E on the grounds that it states "the described behaviour is MORE RELEVANT to the issue at hand". Where as in the passage it states "a cannibal tadpole is LESS LIKELY to avoid eating kin"

My reasoning follows:

say there is a cannibal tadpole and throughout the week he eats 100 times and all 100 times he recognizes and avoids eating kin, and chooses to eat 100 fresh water shrimp. however say that tadpole becomes hungry for some reason (maybe that he's ate so much shrimp and grown so big that 100 of them does not fill him up anymore) regardless of that, now that he's hungry he is "LESS LIKELY" to avoid eating kin, if before he had 100% accuracy (in avoiding kin) and say now he is only 99% accurate even a small decrease in accuracy allows him to be LESS LIKLEY (99.999% of the time is less likely than 100% of the time).

going back to answer choice E, How can we say that that change in behaviour (say that 1% change) is more relevant than the "Immediately preceding material" that describes the tadpoles behaviour for the other 99% precent of the time ?

thats why I eliminated E