PrepTest 136

[lcid:3642] Prep Test 136 LSAT — Reading Comp — S3 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 13-19  .        Traditional theories of animal behavior assert that  . animal conflict within a species is highly ritualized Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Traditional theory, with example
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Traditional theory - Species-specific model - Animals evolved to fake fight with always the same ritual displays to prevent injury
    • Example - Tortoise - stretch necks

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • A new theory that applies in some cases; “Parent” theory; Example; Differences between parent and child theories
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Counterexample to species-specific model - aperta spider, which changes up fighting behavior and sometimes actually fights
    • Reichert - Evolutionary game theory - Explains differences in behavior (size, age, experience)
    • Parent theory - Classical game theory (vN + M) - Humans in conflict
    • Similarities - Maximizing average payoff
    • Differences - 1) Classical = rational thought, Evolutionary = instinct; 2) Classical = Individual decides value, Evolutionary = Payoff is reproduction

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Predictions are made by Reichert
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Prediction - Opponents size, predators, other options for home = factors in fight
    • Specific prediction - Grassland (fewer places for home) - Lots of fighting; Riparian (more places for home) - Less fighting

Main Point: While the Species-Specific Model of animal conflict applies in many cases, Susan Reichert’s Evolutionary Game Theory may explain the fighting behavior of certain spiders, accounting for their varied fighting behavior with a number of factors.

Key Lines?

Lines 1-6 - The traditional theory

Line 8 - An example of the traditional theory is introduced

Lines 14-16 - An example that falls outside the traditional theory

Lines 16-19 - A new theory

Line 47; Line 51 - Predictions are made

Meta-Structure?

Old Theory/New Theory - This passage falls into one of the most common Science passage Meta-Structures - the Old Theory/New Theory passage. Here, the traditional theory is the Species-Specific Model (Lines 1-3), while Reichert’s Evolutionary Game Theory is the new one (Lines 16-19). However, unlike many of these passages, the traditional theory isn’t shown to be wrong - after all, it explains the behavior of turtles (Lines 8-12). Rather, Evolutionary Game Theory is shown potentially to explain certain cases - really, just one, with Agelenopsis aperta spiders. Additionally, another theory is in the mix - Classical Game Theory - though that’s brought up just to highlight the history and features of Evolutionary Game Theory (Lines 23-26), so it’s tangential to the argument. In any case, in an Old Theory/New Theory passage, the Author’s view of the new theory is generally the main point. Here, he definitely doesn’t buy into Reichert’s theory 100%, as he phrases most things as what Reichert argues and predicts, but he certainly at least thinks it might apply to these spiders - leading to the main point above.

Examples - Each of the theories has a single example that backs it up, so we should expect questions about them. We’ll probably get one question on the tortoises, but quite a few on the spiders.

Comparisons - Paragraph 2 features similarities and differences between Evolutionary Game Theory and Classical Game Theory, so we should expect a question or two on those. Paragraph 3 also makes comparative predictions about riparian and grassland habitats, which will likely be good for a question or two.

Predictions - It would be very easy to miss a key aspect of Paragraph 3 - there are no actual studies done, just predictions on what Reichert thinks would be the case should studies on A. aperta be carried out. That might be important as we look at answers about that paragraph, so let’s keep it in mind.

Last Thoughts?

You just know they’re going to ask about a “riparian” habitat - it’s a word they don’t expect you to know ahead of time, and they don’t provide a definition. We’ll circle back to it if it comes up in a question, as there’s no point in spending time on figuring it out until we know that it’s important in getting a question correct.

Question prompt

The passage suggests which Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

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 of Reichert’s theory, then find an answer that lines up with it

Answer Anticipation

Reichert’s entire argument/theory is about the behavior of A. aperta in conflict situations, so we should review the big picture information about that theory. And we already thought this through for Question #16:Her theory was introduced in Paragraph 2. There, Evolutionary Game Theory is described, saying that fighting behavior will be different from “varying conditions” (Lines 21-22) in order to “maximiz[e] the average payoff” (Line 28). Spiders will fight when the resource they’re fighting over is valuable (Lines 30-33), and their decision is based on instinct (Line 38) and whether it leads to reproductive success (Line 44).Let’s find an answer that lines up with that information.

Answer choices

  1. A
    They exhibit variations in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) There should be one word that sticks out to you here - “primarily.” In order for this answer to be correct, we’d need to find a place where suitable sites are listed as the primary reason for the spiders to fight. And such language doesn’t exist - we would have noted it if it did. While Reichert spends all of Paragraph 3 making predictions about how spiders will respond to challenges over resources in different habitats, she never claims that that’s the primary resource over which they’ll fight.

  2. B
    They may confine their Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem

    (B) (Lines 30-33) This answer lines up with Evolutionary Game Theory, which states that spiders are more likely to fight over valuable resources and less likely to fight over less valuable resources. As such, if a disputed resource just isn’t worth fighting over, then these spiders would be less likely to fight over them.

  3. C
    They exhibit variations in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) The behavior of spiders isn’t compared to any animal other than the tortoises from Paragraph 1 - and Reichert doesn’t even argue that Evolutionary Game Theory explains the behavior of any other animals!

  4. D
    They are more likely Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) (Lines 5-6; Lines 30-33) This answer is tempting because the traditional theory said that animals limited themselves to visual displays, and Evolutionary Game Theory argued that A. aperta would actually fight if the resource were valuable enough. However, there’s no discussion of what they do when the resource isn’t valuable enough - they may engage in the ritualized “fighting” behavior that we see in tortoises. And, with that in mind, there’s no discussion of how frequently disputes are over resources valuable enough to risk injury during a fight. So we can’t say that they’re more likely to engage in fights than ritualized behavior - most disputes between spiders might be over resources that aren’t worth risking injury over.

  5. E
    They are more willing Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Similar to (C), this answer is wrong because the spiders and their behavior isn’t compared to any animal species outside of the tortoises from Paragraph 1.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Choice a 1 reply

    Started by Meredith

View all discussions Start a discussion