Q16

[LSAT-Chang]

I picked (D) for this because I thought the last sentence was a key to the central argument, in that this relic behavior doesn't persist forever. Why would the author have brought it up at the end if it had nothing to do with the overall argument? I thought there was something "key" to this, and so I confidently eliminated A, C, E and left with B and D, and eventually chose D. Can anyone please help me?

[yoohoo081]

I got this one wrong too, but I crossed out D because the explanations aren't clear. Line 26-29 states much supporting evidence and behavior shaped by enemies that no longer existence. Also, i don't think enemies are environmental conditions, so I ruled out D.

I actually couldn't decide between B and A.

Is B wrong because the word evironmental factors that no linger exist? Passage doesn't state this at all and that hypothesis being doubtful is never mentioned either. Just mentions like an accept fact in line 7.

So, is A the best answer because this is adaptation to predators, not environmental factors mentioned in other choices and both and behavior and fossil records stated in the passage are evidences to why such behavior still exists?

Thank you and please correct me if my process of elimination was wrong.

[ohthatpatrick]

A lot of people get confused by this passage. I'll try to distill the important moments into just a handful of line references to simplify the overall point/purpose.

Remember in RC to be reading mainly for the moments of the passage that

- switch from background information to the primary focus of the passage. This switch is almost always triggered by the words BUT/YET/HOWEVER/RECENTLY

- indicate the author's opinion on anything

- introduce points of view other than the author's

- indicate whether the author agrees or disagrees with these points of view

Also, remember that the 1st paragraph often foreshadows the purpose of the whole passage, and the 1st sentence of each subsequent paragraph often foreshadows the purpose of that paragraph.

* Lines 1-8, background.
* Line 8-14 switches from background to the primary focus (prefaced by HOWEVER). Introduces a point of view of [One biologist]. ... from this point on, I would be reading for whether the author agrees or disagrees with this biologist's point of view ... and I anticipate that this point of view will be central to the purpose of the whole passage

* Lines 15-18 foreshadow disagreement with [One biologist], but it's not clear who the skeptics are.
* Lines 19-23 provide the disagreement with [One biologist], but it's not the author disagreeing, it's a new point of view: [Most biologists] .... I think I have the scale at this point ... now I'm REALLY dying to find out which side the author is on
* Lines 24-25, triggered by BUT, tell me that the author is here to support [One biologist]

* Lines 26-29 solidify my prediction that the author is here to support [One biologist]
* Lines 29-43, triggered by FOR EXAMPLE, tell me that the author is about to tell me some specifics to illustrate the previous claim. I know that under this umbrella, all this stuff is supposed to support [One biologist]

* Lines 44-46 introduce the topic of this paragraph ... to provide even more evidence that [One biologist] may be correct. The evidence will be about other animals, but it's still to support [One biologist's] theory about the pronghorns.
* Lines 46-56, triggered by FOR EXAMPLE, tell me that the author is just giving some specifics to illustrate the previous claim. I know this stuff is still supposed to support [One biologist]
* Lines 57-61, triggered by HOWEVER, tell me that the author is now drawing a contrast with his previous discussion of relict behaviors. What is the contrast? They aren't permanent.

A great question raised was how much weight to place on this final sentence. Up until then, it seemed clear that the central argument of this passage was [One biologist] vs. [Most biologists] ... i.e., whether relict behaviors are a plausible means of explaining the pronghorn's speed or not.

I know that up until now, the author was agreeing that relict behaviors ARE a plausible explanation. He spent most of paragraph 3 and 4 providing support for it. Does this final sentence unravel all that support? No, and not just because it's only one sentence compared to almost two full paragraphs. The relict behavior disappears in squirrels who haven't been around their ancient predators for 3 million years. By contrast, the pronghorn's predators have only been gone for 10,000 years. So the fact that the author is telling us that relict behaviors ultimately disappear is just informative; it has no bearing on the central question of the passage: "Is the pronghorn's speed due to relict behavior?"

I realize this was a long wind-up to telling you how I'd make my eliminations on #16. Ultimately, you can boil the author's main claims in this passage down to lines 24-25, lines 26-29, and lines 44-46.

The first important moment is when the author finally indicates which side of the pronghorn debate he's on, and the other two important moments are the beginnings of paragraphs, as the author indicates how he's going to support his point of view.

(A) is simply a paraphrase of where the author stands on the "pronghorn: relict behavior?" debate.
(B) is the opposite of choice A. It suggests that the author was on the side of [Most biologists]. The author doesn't think "relict behavior" is doubtful. He spends two paragraphs supporting its existence.
(C) is wrong because it goes broader than the passage ever does, and says that relict behavior accounts for MOST present-day characteristics of animals.
(D) "clearly explained" is too strong ... the author thinks relict behavior is plausible and has support, but he never says anything so certain that we could defend "clearly explained" ... and this answer indicates that the main point of the entire passage was that "relict behaviors will eventually disappear" ... that was the main point?
(E) "widespread agreement" is stronger than anything we can find in the passage ... in fact, it's contradicted by line 19, that "most biologists" distrust the relict behavior explanation

To go back to (B) and (D) for a sec, when you're reading Main Point answer choices, beware of their frequent two-part structure.

They normally start with a subordinate clause and then give you a main clause.

Pretend you were choosing between these two answers:

(F) Although most biologists distrust relict behavior, there is much supporting evidence that the pronghorn's speed is explained by long-extinct predators.

(G) Although there is much supporting evidence that the pronghorn's speed is explained by long-extinct predators, most biologists distrust relict behavior.

They're both accurate in what details they include, but more weight is placed on the main clause of the answer. Hence, (F) would be correct and (G) would be wrong.

Finally, I should say that I would definitely allow "environmental conditions" to include such things as the existence of predators.

Don't think "environment" just means "weather, climate, etc."

It could include topography, food sources, natural enemies, and so forth. In the context of an evolutionary discussion, your 'environment' really just means 'the world as it existed when you were alive'. More specifically, it means anything that affected a species that would make it more or less likely to survive.

For pronghorns, having hungry cheetahs lurking about was a hazardous environmental factor.

Whew. Long explanation! I hope it helped.

[LSAT-Chang]

Wow, what an awesome explanation! Thank you sooo much for going into this much detail for this passage -- the main point was definitely confusing to me at first, but now I totally understand not just the main point but the WHOLE passage! Thanks so much for your help!!

[ccheng]

Thanks for the great explanation!

I have a quick question. I was debating between (A) and (C), and thought (C) was good except the word "most".

If (C) does not have the word "most", would it be a better answer than (A)? My reasoning is that the passage touches not only pronhorns' but also other animals' relic behaviors. I originally thought that a choice focusing only on pronhorn is considered too narrow. (C) looks tempting because it says "Research into animal behavior, particularly into that of the pronghorn" which emphasizes pronghorn while covering other animals (matches the weight in passage - three paragraphs on pronhorn and one paragraph on other animals). Perhaps, other words such as "hypothesis" and "long extinct" still make (A) fit the passage better?

Your insight is really appreciated. Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, I totally agree that (C) with 'some' instead of 'most' sounds better than (A).

But, naturally, they wouldn't make us choose between (A) and THAT version of (C).

We gotta recognize that they always put SOMETHING broken in an incorrect answer choice, so that when we're comparing (A) and (C), we're focused on what's BREAKING one of them, not what's giving one an advantage over the other.

The fact that I can't find anything broken with (A), but I can find 'most' in (C) is how I resolve that down to 2.

I think this is why the best way to get better/quicker at RC is to become master of identifying quick/specific reasons to kill off answers.