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

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

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

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Review the concluding sentence of the second paragraph, consult notes, and choose an answer choice based on your understanding of that reference in the passage's overall argument

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us why the author included the last sentence of the second paragraph. Unless a detail conflicts with the paragraph's purpose, the author probably mentioned that detail to advance the paragraph's role. So, reviewing the second paragraph's role, which we hopefully wrote down in the notes on our scratch paper, will generally reveal why the author included that detail.Our note for the second paragraph is, "Inclusive fitness theory applied to mysterious cannibal behavior (spadefoot tadpole example, who can become cannibalistic but avoid kin, unless really hungry)." So, the overall purpose of the second paragraph is to show how the inclusive fitness theory can explain previously mysterious cannibal behavior — particularly that of the spadefoot tadpole. The spadefoot tadpole example shows that when these tadpoles become cannibals, they avoid eating their kin because kin have the same genes. So, eating the kin would reduce the tadpole's genes in the gene pool. So, how does the last sentence relate to that purpose?Reviewing the last sentence, we'll see this is one of the rare instances where a detail does appear to conflict with the paragraph's overall purpose. The concluding line brings up an exception to the paragraph's purpose — a time when the tadpoles will eat kin. When they're starving, they will eat kin — according to the passage, this is because they'll prioritize the survival of their own genes over the genes of their siblings (close, but not the same).When the relevant detail conflicts with the paragraph's overall purpsoe, the role of that detail is usually to qualify or state an exception to the paragraph's main point. That definitely applies to this case. The author brings this situation up to show that inclusive fitness theory doesn't fully explain the behavior of spadefoot tadpoles, as there are situations where they'll break from that theory's predicted behavior. Still, this reflects the author's opinion as expressed in the previous line, saying that inclusive fitness theory "offers at least a partial answer" to the development of kin recognition (P2, S7). So, the correct answer will probably say something like "to qualify" or "to complicate" inclusive fitness theory's explanation of the spadefoot tadpole's cannibalistic behavior.

Answer choices

  1. A
    to draw attention to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    (A) Does this say something like "to qualify" or "to complicate" inclusive fitness theory's explanation of the spadefoot tadpole's cannibalistic behavior?

    Well, it definitely includes the "to complicate" part of our anticipation. The rest gets a little tough to read. It also brings up "any theory of natural selection that accounts for kin recognition," which goes well beyond our anticipation. So, even experienced test-takers would table this and only return to it after eliminating the other answer choices.

    Upon review, we'll see that this ultimately describes the last sentence of the second paragraph. The penultimate sentence establishes the author's opinion that inclusive fitness theory provides "at least a partial answer" to the question of the development of kin recognition (P2, S7). That tells us the author believes there may be elements of behavior that aren't accounted for by the inclusive fitness theory, and the concluding line brings up such behavior. This transitions to the start of the third paragraph, where the author explicitly states that there may be other reasons for kin recognition (P3, S1). As such, the purpose of this exception is to highlight that kin recognition is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon that can have multiple overlapping explanations. This answer captures that uncertainty and complication, making it the correct answer.

  2. B
    to explain why cannibals Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say something like "to qualify" or "to complicate" inclusive fitness theory's explanation of the spadefoot tadpole's cannibalistic behavior?

    Nope. This brings up cannibalistic behavior in "most species." In fact, the final sentence of the second paragraph explicitly mentions "cannibal tadpole[s]" and no other animals, so this comparative answer is incorrect.

  3. C
    to describe behavior that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say something like "to qualify" or "to complicate" inclusive fitness theory's explanation of the spadefoot tadpole's cannibalistic behavior?

    No. This would describe nearly every sentence in the second paragraph other than the last one. The second paragraph explains that cannibal tadpoles can recognize their kin to avoid eating them. The final line talks about an exception when they do eat their kin, so it doesn't lend support to the overall argument in this paragraph.

  4. D
    to offer evidence that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say something like "to qualify" or "to complicate" inclusive fitness theory's explanation of the spadefoot tadpole's cannibalistic behavior?

    Negative. This goes too far in saying that spadefoot tadpoles' behavior is "unexplainable." The preceding sentence says that inclusive fitness theory is at least a partial answer to the spadefoot tadpole behavior (P2, S7), and even the final sentence puts forward an "apparent[]" explanation for the behavior it talks about (P2, S8). As such, this answer is incorrect.

  5. E
    to imply that the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Does this say something like "to qualify" or "to complicate" inclusive fitness theory's explanation of the spadefoot tadpole's cannibalistic behavior?

    Again, no. The author doesn't say that the behavior described in the last sentence is "more relevant" than the behavior described throughout the second paragraph. Besides, it doesn't make sense to include a "more relevant" explanation in the last line of a paragraph after investing a lot of time in another explanation.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion