Q21 - Evolution does not always optimize survival

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Describe Technique (Analyze Argument Structure)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Evolution doesn't always optimize survival of an organism.
Evidence: Male moose have giant antlers, which do have some survival advantage, but all male moose would be BETTER off with antlers half as big.

Answer Anticipation:
The author supports her conclusion with an example of "the male moose".

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) She cites an example to support her conclusion. Is her conclusion casting doubt on a competing ARGUMENT? No, it's casting doubt on a claim: "evolution always optimizes survival of an organism". Arguments have a minimum of two claims: the conclusion and at least one supporting idea.

(B) There is no analogy. The male moose is specific example of evolution being applied to an organism. An analogy would be something like "Evolution doesn't always optimize survival. After all, in a similar sense, personal trainers don't always optimize caloric burn with their clients' workouts, since .... "

(C) YES, she supports her conclusion with an example. Her conclusion is ruling out a generalization. She's saying, "it's NOT true that [evolution always optimizes survival]", and the male moose is a counterexample to that ruled-out generalization.

(D) She embraces the relevance; she doesn't dispute it. It supports her view.

(E) Self-contradiction is almost never right on LSAT. This means that the author showed us that "evolution actually means to MINIMIZE survival of an organism".

Takeaway/Pattern: The typical ingredients tested when we describe the procedure / technique are ...
analogy, (counter)example, implications of logic, ruling out alternatives, alternate interpretation of evidence, define a term, draw a distinction

#officialexplanation

[andrewgong01]

"A" was tempting

I was wondering if you can clarify what "Competing argument means" because "C" says "challenging a competing claim" and to me they seem to be the 'same' thing where they are both challenging an alternative perspective . I think my confusion may be the difference between alluding to a claim vs alluding to an argument on the LSAT. To me I am not quite sure on how to make the judgement that it was alluding to challenging a general claim as oppose to challenging a competing argument, 'the other general claim'

The other part that confused me was 'C' saying 'counterexample'. I thought counterexample had to be attached to a claim/example that goes against anther example and the stimulus does not have another example that would go against the antler idea. If anything, to me, it would seem like 'counterexample' is a better fit for 'A' that claims the entire argument as being centered around challenging a competing argument, which more naturally lends itself to having a counter example. On the other hand "A" says 'example' which seems to do a better job in describing the role of the antler. My prephase was along the lines of "Showing a general claim is not always true via an antler example'

[ohthatpatrick]

Arguments have a minimum of two claims: the conclusion and at least one supporting idea.

The author is arguing against this idea: "evolution always optimizes survival of an organism". Can we call what’s in quotes an argument?

No, because it’s only one claim. An argument has a minimum of two claims: the conclusion and at least one supporting idea.

If we can’t call "evolution always optimizes survival of an organism" an argument, then we can’t say that the author was fighting against an argument.

Counterexamples do NOT mean “my example vs. your opposing example”. They mean (perhaps always) a specific example that DEFIES a general claim.

“All accountants are good at math!” (GENERAL CLAIM)
“Nuh-uh. My Uncle Morty is an accountant and he’s terrible at math.” (COUNTEREXAMPLE)

“Evolution always optimizes survival of an organism!” (GENERAL CLAIM)
“Nuh-uh. Check out my boy Male Moose, always getting his oversized antlers stuck during a getaway.” (COUNTEREXAMPLE)

Hope this helps.

[PierreR118]

I was a dope. I was waffling between C and D, but ultimately chose D because at the onset it seemed like it was used to support the argument the speaker is challenging. And then the speaker destroys it.

I realize now that the fact that the speaker talks about how in one instance, an adapted trait is evolutionarily beneficial and in another instance the same trait is not pretty much does show that "Evolution does not ***always*** optimize survival of an organism."

[AyakiK696]

I was between C and D, and ultimately went with D because I couldn't really figure out what it meant.... which was probably the wrong move . What exactly does D mean?

[ohthatpatrick]

VIEW: Football is an unacceptably risky sport, because the players incur too many head injuries.

OPPOSING VIEW: Football is an acceptable sport
SUPPOSED SUPPORT FOR OPPOSING VIEW: My friend Kevin played football for 15 years and never incurred a head injury.

DISPUTING THE RELEVANCE OF AN EXAMPLE THOUGHT TO SUPPORT AN OPPOSING VIEW:
Your friend Kevin was a punter, so he only is involved in about 2% of all plays and his role is just to kick the ball, which is a non-contact role, unlike all other positions.


You would need to see the author's opponent present an example, and then you'd need to see the author say, in some way, "That example is hardly fair for the discussion we're having".

Hope this helps.

[AyakiK696]

That clarifies things a lot for me! Thank you!