PrepTest 131

Incorrect. The importance of doing these things is out of scope of the argument, as it's never referenced there.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Selfishness means bringing about the best conditions for yourself, so creating replicas isn't selfish, and so genes aren't selfish.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument gets pretty deep into some weirdly used terms of genetics, but we should not let that distract us and instead focus on the argument. And, as with most arguments that feature an opposing point and a pivot, the author's argument starts with that pivot.

The Geneticist here pivots to an opinion on the opposing point—their drive to call genes "selfish" is wrong. Why? Because selfishness is bringing about the best conditions for yourself, and self-replicating (what some biologists say makes genes selfish) is therefore not selfish.

However, the Geneticist doesn't actually explain why self-replicating isn't selfish. Since she defines selfishness as "creating the best conditions for oneself," therefore, she must be assuming that self-replication doesn't create these conditions, which would then allow the conclusion to be drawn that genes aren't selfish and thus the view that they are is wrong.

Answer Explanation:
This answer bridges the gap we identified in the logic of the stimulus. If self-replication doesn't create the best conditions for oneself, then, under the Geneticist's definition, self-replication isn't selfish, and thus the opposing point's application of that term to genes is incorrect.

Key Takeaway:
When there's a lot of background and opposing point information in an argument that is in a content area that you find difficult (e.g., science for most people taking the LSAT), focus on the author's argument. Simplifying the stimulus in this way can make it a lot easier to deal with.

Incorrect. While the argument does suggest that the definition of "selfish" in genetics is different from its everyday definition, it doesn't bring up a definition that's incompatible with that definition, and it certainly by itself doesn't allow the conclusion to be drawn that genes aren't selfish.

Incorrect. The argument is about whether self-replication is or isn't selfish, not whether it's unique to genes, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. There being insufficient evidence for an opposing point doesn't allow a conclusion to be drawn that the opposing point is wrong—believing so would be an absence of evidence flaw.