Q6

[jenoh82223]

Can I ask what is wrong with (A) ?

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Purpose of Information

Answer expected in lines/paragraph:
Usually the Purpose of a Paragraph is a paraphrase of its (first) topic sentence, although it's helpful to read the ending of the previous paragraph as well for the sake of considering the connective tissue. In this case, though, this paragraph has a neutral fact, a third person point of view, and then the author's point of view. So it's more complicated then that. Since line 19-22 is the thesis of the whole passage, we should definitely think through that lens when we discuss the function of the 2nd paragraph.

Any prephrase?
The first paragraph outlined a distinction between "natural selection explains ALL biological phenomena" vs. "natural selection explains most". The 2nd paragraph begins by defining natural selection and then describes the strict constructionist point of view. Finally, the author pushes back with her thesis (the fact that the 3rd paragraph begins with "for example", shows us that line 19-22 is BIG and will be fleshed out in greater detail). So we might prephrase "to introduce and counter an idea about natural selection".

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:

(A) There are no objections to evolutionary theory. Strict constructionists like the natural selection part of evolutionary so much that they seek to explain everything through its prism. More importantly, this answer choice doesn't have any wording to capture 19-22, the main point of the passage.

(B) It doesn't list any evidence. This sounds more like the 3rd paragraph.

(C) 'Describes' is too neutral if not followed up with something that indicates that the author disagrees with this point of view.

(D) It doesn't enumerate multiple arguments. It defines natural selection, articulates the SC's position, and then counters with the author's thesis.

(E) Yes, I guess we're stuck with this stinker. The phrase "If the SC's are right, then ___" describes the implications of the SC's view. And 19-22 is the thesis from which the evidence in subsequent paragraphs get their relevance.

Takeaway/Pattern: They really went out of their way to write a terrible correct answer here. We had to hold strong to our conviction that since the 2nd paragraph introduces the author's main point, we need an answer choice that somehow can describe that function.

[jenoh82223]

 
Thanks a lot!!!

[CalvinC566]

I'm still not understanding how you came to the conclusion E is the right answer.
I'm currently stuck between D and E.
It seems like the reason patrick ruled out D is because it enumerates MULTIPLE argumentS?
but does E do the same? it explains the consequences of the SC's claimS/argumentS.
I feel like the second paragraph establishes the argument for SC and it is later rebutted.
They're really similar answers. Can someone elaborate?

[AmyH231]

Hi CalvinC566,

I initially picked D as well, and it took me a while to figure out why it was wrong--in my blind review I picked B, so I'll go over that too.

So if you look at the paragraph it first defines what natural selection is, then presents the strict constructionists' view (If SC are right --> then all attributes and survival are because of NS). Then, it provides 2 reasons (it lists or enumerates them, if you will) as to why this is NOT true, which are then expanded upon in the next two paragraphs.

My prephrase, which didn't really work was: It defines NS and SC, then refutes this belief and presents counter examples.

What a winning prephrase might look like: It defines NS, explains what should happen providing SC, then refutes SC and presents counter examples that are later discussed.

A - 2P doesn't discuss traditional evolutionary theory, just one part of it. This broad view is in paragraph 1. Also the SC never raise objections to this, and their name ironically suggests that they fully support evolutionary theory even though this is not what their POV actually turns out to be. Toss out

B- seems sort of half right? It gets that the author believes SC are wrong, and it does list evidence, but is it recent? We don't know that. Also, it doesn't address everything going on in the paragraph--no mention of what SC's beliefs mean in terms of evolutionary theory. Might be a contender, but ultimately not good enough.

C- it starts off good but then veers off in a weird direction. 2P does describe SC's view of ET but that's where this answer's credibility ends. 2P does not explain the subsequent paragraphs at all, it contradicts them. Also where is this "recently" coming from? And who says that these "new" theories have gotten "so much" attention? As compared to what? This is a compare trap and an unsupported and maybe some other problems as well. Not a contender

D- This one is SO TRICKY. 2P does list off 2 things that should occur if SC are right. BUT this ans is saying that all attributes and survival are arguments FOR SC's position. That's actually the opposite of what's being said in 2P, right? These aren't arguments for SC, but rather what SC is arguing. They don't support the theory. This is what the theory is saying happens, not the other way around. So close, but so wrong

E- It does explain the ramifications of SC's claims--what would be true if SC were right. It also connects the next two paragraphs to the MP/argument, which is that SC is wrong. Arguably this is not really what the prephrase looks like, but it keeps the right scope (covers all the points) and has no wrong twists and turns. It's in order too, which is nice.

Deciding between B, D, E: B feels like it might be a main point, but 2P does more than just that. Also the recently is a gift--what's it doing there? Maybe you don't have time to go back and look to see if you've missed it, but the half-right answer is never the all-right answer. D--it covers the whole paragraph so it passes that test. For this one, you really have to take an extra second or two and look at how the sentence is constructed. Look at the "for"--what's for what? E. It doesn't have everything I'd like from my prephrase, but it has just as much as all the others (if not more) and no factual errors. E it is.

[RyanC307]

Just on the "claims" vs. "arguments" issue:

The author never states any arguments made by the strict constructionists. Instead she just describes the claims they make.

They are: natural selection is responsible for BOTH:
"every aspect of every species' form and behavior" and "the success or failure of every species in general"

The second paragraph states what natural selection is, which helps explain the implication the author takes the strict constructionists to hold. Here, each claim corresponds to a part of the implication (attribute persistence and survival).

The 3rd + 4th paragraphs then attack each of these.