Q8

[panman36]

I finally settled on "A", but was reluctant to chose it because it didn't say anything about inclusive fitness theory. Am I wrong for expecting the a main point answer to mention this?

[bbirdwell]

You're not wrong for expecting the main point to mention the term explicitly, but as you've seen here, it doesn't have to.

The first clause of answer choice A, ("the hypothesis that kin...total genetic representation") is a definition of inclusive fitness. Though it doesn't use the term, that's what inclusive fitness is -- relatives are the "total genetic representation."

This choice is definitely the best structural articulation of the main point: there's a lot of evidence for this idea, but there's also at least some evidence (last paragraph) that deviates from it.

[joseph.carroll.555]

I struggled with this question, but I just want to be sure I understand it now.

The last part of A states "but this hypothesis (which we know is inclusive fitness theory) may not explain all instances of kin recognition."

Is this last part of A mentioned above in reference to the Tiger Salamander Larvae example? In that, the larvae had not evolved kin recognition to promote their total genetic representation, but instead had evolved kin recognition because it gave them, individually, a better chance of survival.

[erikwoodward10]

Furthermore:

B: Wrong because this is an extremely encompassing statement to make based on the little evidence presented in the reading. What if the two examples of fitness theory actually encompass all of the potential purposes served? Unsupported.

C: Wrong for two reasons. It doesn't necessarily undermine the hypothesis of fitness theory, it complicates it. Furthermore, what do traditionalists say anyway? Fitness theory is compatible with natural selection, but we dont know where traditionalists fall on the scale. Unsupported.

D: Actually the evidence supports fitness theory. Wrong.

E: Too extreme. The passage gives us examples that fitness theory isn't fully compatible with.