Q16

[bradleygirard]

This question is a tricky one, and if anyone can help justify some reasoning that would be great. Due to some difficult wording in the question stem, I chose A, thinking that it was looking to find what "struggle for existence" meant, as opposed to why it was introduced. So I can understand why that was incorrect, but I still think that D is an answer that doesn't really fit. Perhaps i have become a bit to anal from doing so many of these RC sections and LR sections, but my thought process is that throughout the passage they mention many different types of biologists, and determinist biologists aren't mentioned until the fourth paragraph. Whereas determinist biologists aren't mentioned until the fourth paragraph, evolutionary biologists are mentioned directly before the quoted line. If the answer were to reference evolutionary biologists, I would better understand why it was the correct answer. The passage however, never explicitly puts the evolutionary biologists in the determinist camp, though we could guess that they would be, I would think that in order for this to truly hold up as an answer somewhere in the passage they would have to either say that evolutionary biologists are determinists, or say that everyone falls into one of two camps, determinist or non-determinist. For without that, there is certainly, in my mind at least, left a reasonable doubt that evolutionary biologists, while perhaps sharing many views with the determinists, may not ascribe to all of their tenets, and vice versa. Any thoughts on this?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question!

I think you should slow down a bit in your reading. Remember to take the following 4 steps when reading an RC passage.

1. Pause
2. Evaluate
3. Anticipate
4. Reassess

Your understanding of the 4th passage did not include the fact that the first sentence is a reference to the two kinds of biologists described in the paragraph above.

So...

Determinist Biologist = Evolutionary Biologist
Some Biologists (line 25) = Biologists who leave room for historical contingency

Now when you look at answer choice (D), we know that the line reference describes evolutionary biologists, so we can say that it describes determinist biologists.

(A) describes the wrong group of biologists. The line reference is about the ones who do not take history into account.
(B) is incorrect. It's not "uncertainty" but rather "certainty" that these biologists are hoping for.
(C) goes too far. It's a cause of controversy, but not necessarily the chief cause.
(D) correctly identifies the correct group of biologists. It is there to provide an example of a determinist approach.
(E) misidentifies the group. The line reference is not regarding the group of biologists who take history into account.

[zainrizvi]

I'm confused as to how (A) is referring to the wrong group. Doesn't it say that evolutionary biologists created the notion.. that is "the engine of biological history"?

[timmydoeslsat]

I'm confused as to how (A) is referring to the wrong group. Doesn't it say that evolutionary biologists created the notion.. that is "the engine of biological history"?

I agree that it does not necessarily refer to the wrong group.

My opinion that this answer choice is wrong is that the author does not mention this idea of evolutionary biologists formulating a universal struggle for existence to identify one of the driving forces of biological history!

This author mentioned this part to show the reader how evolutionary biologists want a theory or idea that explains biology in the same way that physics can be explained. That is, by these universal laws that are so certain.

[chike_eze]

I'm confused as to how (A) is referring to the wrong group. Doesn't it say that evolutionary biologists created the notion.. that is "the engine of biological history"?

I think this is one of those "Do I put on my RC or LR hat ?"

I picked (D) because after re-reading the section about evo-biologists (who emulate physicists), it was all about evo-biologists' support for universal laws. The section only briefly mentioned the "engine of biology history".

But after reading your post, I see your point that "some evolutionary biologists created the notion of 'struggle for existence' that is the engine of biology history" (line 21,22).

So, in my opinion, the wording in (A) is technically correct based on the text. But (A) is not the "primary" purpose why "struggle for existence" is referenced in (line 21). The engine of biology history is parenthetical to the main idea that "struggle for existence" is one of the explanations offered by some evo-biologists to support their idea of universal laws.

20-25 reads like... "In formulating 'struggle for existence' that is bla-bla-bla or asserting clocklike DNA, they attempted to find their own version of the law of gravity" (i.e. a universal law)

Therefore, (D) is the primary purpose. (A) is secondary (parenthetical).

Please poke holes in this theory

[bigtree65]

While I agree with all you have to say about D I still feel that A seems like a better answer. The author compares the notion of a universal struggle for existence with the law of gravity. So isn't he drawing a parallel between gravity being a driving force for physics and struggle for existence being a driving force for biological history? Please help

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This question is another great example of a particular approach to some RC questions. chike_eze has it exactly right when he said

I think this is one of those "Do I put on my RC or LR hat ?"

In RC on questions that ask what was the "primary purpose" of the author mentioning ______ , you should ask yourself "why is this information there? as opposed to what are they saying?

Frequently on a question like this one, I'll identify two answer choices that both look good. The next thing I ask myself, "is one of these answer choices describing what it is and the other describing why it's there?" Answer choice (A) is a classic example of an answer choice that states exactly what the information presents, but answer choice (D) is describing why the information is there.

So, once again, I'll refer to chike_eze when he said

So, in my opinion, the wording in (A) is technically correct based on the text. But (A) is not the "primary" purpose why "struggle for existence" is referenced in (line 21). The engine of biology history is parenthetical to the main idea that "struggle for existence" is one of the explanations offered by some evo-biologists to support their idea of universal laws.

he's got this exactly right!

Does that answer your question?

[sumukh09]

I chose A as well but after reading through some of the posts here I guess the take away would be to understand the broader intent of the reason this specific reference to "struggle for existence" was mentioned. In other words, in questions where we're asked to identify what a specific line "serves primarily to," our aim should be to take into account the bigger picture of the passage and not just the few lines before and after the specific reference. Would this be correct?

[yin yinw747]

I was between B and D and chose b because I took the sentence to mean that the notion is a actually an uncertain concept and that is why the determinist biologist want to find a more certain law for it. And I read the answer choice B as saying that the notion is a example of a concept of being wrong.

Can someone please explain how this is not the case? thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

When RC question stems ask
"The author brought up ______ in order to / primarily to"
the test is asking us what the local purpose of this detail was.

I think of these as "bookend" questions, because the question stem points you to a specific detail that is bookended by a broader claim or takeaway.

In 80% or more of these, the correct answer just reinforces the PREVIOUS idea (the broader framing idea that explains why we're bringing up this specific detail).

So, the previous ideas here are lines 15-20. The big idea being discussed is that some evolutionary biologists (just like philosophers of science) are wishing they could turn biology into universal laws.

Hence a universal "struggle for existence" is brought up in order to provide an example of these biologists trying to turn biology into universal laws.

If you were down to (B) or (D) and you were thinking, "Which one better reinforces the framing idea that came right BEFORE (or after) the detail I'm being asked about?", then you would see that (D) reinforces the previous sentence but (B) does not.

(B) in fact does the opposite. We're looking for "universal laws" not "contingent / particular / uncertain".

The rest of the sentence says that "in formulating this universal struggle for existence ... they're attempting to find their own version of the law of gravity".

Hope this helps.