Q12 - Which one of the following

[steven.kantowitz]

I was able to narrow this one down to C and D. I'm not sure why C is incorrect. The only thing I could come up with is that C says "cases," while the passage really only discusses plankton, which would be one case...?

[steven.kantowitz]

Sorry, this belongs in section 1 of PT 29.

[bbirdwell]

You can arrive at the correct answer by analyzing the logical structure of the original.

"it is usually assumed...however_____"

The conclusion follows the "however." So what is the strategy employed by the author? State a common assumption, counter it with an example.

"Cases" is one great reason to eliminate (C), but there are others, namely that there is no "generalization" being advanced. Don't let the language "common" lead you into that trap. This is not a generalization, it's a counter to a given statement supported by one example, and reference to that counter is essential to a description of the logical strategy here. It's not a straight-ahead advancement of anything, it's a setup and a counter, sort of like a logical alley-oop.

Make sense?

[nfpi2006]

I picked A over D. This was a hard question for me.

[tamwaiman]

You can arrive at the correct answer by analyzing the logical structure of the original.

"it is usually assumed...however_____"

The conclusion follows the "however." So what is the strategy employed by the author? State a common assumption, counter it with an example.

Make sense?

I want to make sure my thought.

(B) is incorrect because it merely describes an incomplete strategy following the conclusion "However, ____" and (B)'s controversial phenomenon is equal to (D)'s counterexample.

BTW, can you please tell me more about "logical alley-oop"? Thank you.

[nflamel69]

B is wrong is because of the phrase "controversial phenomenon". no where in the stimulus that alter environment is controversial, if anything, the explanation could be controversial, even that is a stretch from the stimulus.

[mjacob0511]

(A) The principle doesn't justify the claim about a particular case, rather the plankton example backs up the general principle (if we can even call it that). Also the argument is that the characteristic is common, the plankton is one example of a species that isn't the most highly evolved... so the issue isn't the particular case.
(B) The process of the plankton is described but not "how it came about", meaning we know they alter their environment, but not how it came to be that they possessed this power.
(C) What conditions? The need to be most highly evolved, or the argument that they don't need to be most highly evolved. Lets assume the latter, the process would be altering the environment, but there is no examination of caseS.
(D) Exactly. It's assumed that only the most highly evolved species... However, it's quite common... not only in the most highly evolved species, for example (counterexample) the plankton.
(E) Strategy? The example is to show that it doesn't need to be the most highly evolved species, there are no strategical advantages.