PrepTest 127

[lcid:3607] Prep Test 127 LSAT — Reading Comp — S4 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 8-15  .        Mechanisms for recognizing kin are found  . throughout the plant and animal kingdoms, regardless  . of Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • A question (why do organisms recognize kin?) and one answer (inclusive fitness theory: help relatives to increase genetic representation)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Inclusive fitness theory proponents' view:
      • Organisms pass on genes through offspring and relatives, so recognizing kin allows the organism to help its relatives and increase its genetic representation (fourth and fifth sentences)
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • Traditional evolution says that natural selection favors individuals that produce the most offspring, while inclusive fitness theory says that natural selection favors organisms who help their relatives (fifth sentence)
      • But in both cases, natural selection favors these individuals because they increase the organisms' total genetic representation (fifth sentence)
    • Example of phenomena inclusive fitness theory has helped explain, according to the author:
      • The evolution of the honeybee and other social insects, most of which do not produce offspring (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "helped to explain previously mysterious phenomena" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Inclusive fitness theory applied to mysterious cannibal behavior (spadefoot tadpole example, who can become cannibalistic but avoid kin, unless really hungry)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Inclusive fitness theory has been useful in explaining findings on cannibalistic behavior (first sentence)
    • Example of application of inclusive fitness theory to cannibalism, according to the author:
      • Spadefoot toad tadpoles can become cannibalistic but only eat nonrelatives (unless really hungry) (third through last sentences)
    • Cause-and-effect relationships, according to the author:
      • A spadefoot tadpole eating a shrimp or another tadpole causes the tadpole to become larger and entirely carnivorous (fifth sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "applied usefully" (first sentence); "obvious" (second sentence); "suggests" (seventh sentence); "offers at least a partial answer" (seventh sentence); "Interestingly" (last sentence); "apparently" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Alternative answer (avoiding bacteria, tiger salamander larvae example)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • Some organisms, like the tiger salamander, may recognize kin to avoid deadly diseases (first and last sentences)
    • Example of an organism that recognizes kin to avoid deadly diseases, according to the author:
      • Tiger salamander larvae sometimes become carnivorous; a deadly bacterium spreads more easily among relatives, so it's safer to eat nonrelatives (second through fourth sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "may be other reasons" (first sentence); "suggests" (fourth sentence); "may favor" (fourth sentence); "can be explained simply" (last sentence)

Main Point: The inclusive fitness theory can explain some instances of kin recognition, but alternative explanations seem to fit other organisms better.

Meta-Structure?

Question/Answer: This passage best fits the Question/Answer Meta-Structure.* In such a passage, the author poses a question early on and uses the rest of the passage to answer that question. That's what this author did. The author asked why so many organisms are able to recognize their kin, irrespective of how complex that organism is. The author provides two possible answers: the inclusive fitness theory and the ... well, the second one isn't given a name, so we'll call it the don't-eat-your-kin-and-die theory.

When a passage uses a Question/Answer Meta-Structure, the main point is generally the answer the author agrees with. The author is open to both answers in this passage (though the author comes just short of fully endorsing either), as the author suggests that both explanations may apply to different organisms. So, we made sure our anticipated main point reflected the author's noncommittal stance.

*That said, you could definitely call this a Phenomenon/Explanation. After all, there is considerable overlap between the Question/Answer and Phenomenon/Explanation Meta-Structures. The author called the issue of kin recognition a "question" in the first paragraph (P1, S2-S3), so we went with Question/Answer. If you went with Phenomenon/Explanation, you'd wind up with the same understanding of the passage's organization and main point.

Example: There are two major examples in this passage, making the example the most prominent minor Meta-Structure in this passage. In fact, at least one example is provided for each explanation of kin recognition. The inclusive fitness theory is explored through the second half of the first paragraph and the second paragraph, both of which have an example (bees/social insects in the first paragraph, cannibal tadpoles in the second paragraph). The "self-preservation" explanation is presented in the third paragraph via an example of a tiger salamander larva. We should expect a few questions on these examples.

Last Thoughts?

There were a lot of details and a lot of science in each paragraph, so we're going to have to rely heavily on the passage's language to help us with the more technical questions. It will be important, therefore, to know what type of information is in each paragraph so that we can quickly orient around the correct one for each question. So, we'll rely heavily on our notes for this passage.

Question prompt

Based on the passage, Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Review the main point, and use notes or highlighted/underlined text in the passage to recall the author's attitude, and find the answer that best reflects your understanding of the main point/author's attitude

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us about the author's view on evolutionary explanations of kin recognition, but that was the central concern of the passage. As such, this question doesn't provide any insight into the topic of the correct answer or where the supporting information might show up in the passage. This means the correct answer is likely to relate back to the author's main point. As such, we'll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by rereading our answer to the main point question). We can also review any notes about the author's attitude or any text we highlighted because it expresses the author's opinion. After doing that, we can head to the answer choices, tabling those that don't line up with the main point. For those answer choices that conform to the author's main point, we'll use our notes and the passage to see if they're correct.

Answer choices

  1. A
    It is impossible to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Is this answer choice consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes on the author's attitude?

    Nope. This answer choice is about the "mechanisms underlying kin recognition," when the main point and our notes are just about why organisms evolved the ability to recognize kin. Moreover, this answer choice uses bold, SCOTUS-y language that's hard to support and unlikely to appear in the correct answer to an Author Agree question. (Good rule of thumb — avoid answers that say something is "impossible," as they're almost always too strong to be correct.) So, we can safely table or eliminate (A) without reviewing the passage.

    Besides, we wouldn't find any support for (A) if we re-read the entire passage. The passage doesn't dwell on understanding the mechanisms of how organisms recognize kin — it's just taken for granted that the tadpoles and salamanders have some way of recognizing kin, but it's never explained how. Moreover, the author doesn't suggest that understanding these mechanisms requires an evolutionary explanation. In the third paragraph, the author says that "there may be other reasons why organisms recognize their kin" other than the inclusive fitness theory (P3, S1). Some of those reasons might be non-evolutionary.

  2. B
    Such explanations require no Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this answer choice consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes on the author's attitude?

    No. Our main point suggests that the author is noncommital and open to new explanations ("can explain," "seem to fit"). This answer choice suggests that the author is certain that any possible explanation wouldn't require a change to evolutionary theory. That doesn't jibe with the author's tone. Relatedly, answer choice uses bold, SCOTUS-y language that's hard to support and unlikely to appear in the correct answer to an Author Agree question. So, we can safely table or eliminate (B) without reviewing the passage.

    Besides, if we re-read the passage, we'd see that the author probably disagrees with (B). In the first paragraph, the author contrasts the traditional view with inclusive fitness theory ("Whereas…" P1, S5). This suggests that the author believes a modification of the traditional theory is necessary with inclusive fitness theory on the table — expanding it to see natural selection as promoting things that promote kin recognition instead of just the protection of one's direct offspring.

  3. C
    For any such explanation Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Is this answer choice consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes on the author's attitude?

    No. Neither the main point nor our notes discuss whether explanations should ignore organisms' complexity. Moreover, this answer choice uses bold, SCOTUS-y language that's hard to support ("any," "should") and unlikely to appear in the correct answer to an Author Agree question. Plus, this answer doesn't even sound right — how often have you read a passage on the LSAT that says a theory "should" ignore information? So, we can safely table or eliminate (C) without reviewing the passage.

    Besides, we wouldn't find any support for (C) if we re-read the entire passage. The passage discusses social and mental complexity only to highlight that kin recognition occurs in a variety of species at different levels of development (P1, S1), not to say that these differences are irrelevant to how and why they use kin recognition! In fact, the overall point of the passage is that different species use kin recognition for different purposes and through different mechanisms, so this answer doesn't fit in with that.

  4. D
    Kin recognition may have Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Is this answer choice consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes on the author's attitude?

    Yes! This answer is more or less the main point of the passage. Moreover, this answer choice uses weak, easy-to-support language ("may") that fits with the author's noncommital and open tone. The author argues that inclusive fitness theory "offers at least a partial answer" to why kin recognition developed in some species like spadefoot toad tadpoles (P2, S7), but that there may be other explanations in other organisms, such as the self-preservation explanation with tiger salamanders (P3, S1). This answer is, therefore, correct. We can select it and immediately advance to the following question.

  5. E
    No other evolutionary explanation Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Is this answer choice consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes on the author's attitude?

    Nope, this contradicts the author's main point, which says the author is open to explanations other than the inclusive fitness theory. After all, our notes say that the author kicks off the third paragraph by saying that there may be explanations other than inclusive fitness theory that account for kin recognition (P3, S1) As such, this boldly worded answer choice that makes a selection ("No other...can account...with the same success as") is unsupported. We can eliminate it without reviewing the passage.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion