- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Thu Jan 25, 2024 9:51 pm
#105056
Hi LawSchoolDream,
The first step in solving this question is recognizing that this is a Resolve the Paradox question. In the stimulus to these questions, we are given two facts that seem odd together, almost as if they appear to contradict each other. Our job is to find an answer that explains how both sides of the paradox can be true.
Here, the paradox is that, on the one hand, for large abalone shellfish to develop, they must spend less energy on finding food and avoiding predators. On the other hand, large abalone shellfish developed only after otters were abundant in the area. The reason that this appears to be a paradox is that otters eat abalones, so we'd expect the appearance of otters to be harmful to (or even prevent) large abalone, when in fact they actually helped them.
Our prephrase should be that somehow, the otters are indirectly helping the abalones. One possibility would be that the otters would be scaring off other predators. Another would be that the otters are somehow providing food for the abalones or at least making it easier for the abalones to get their food.
The key point is that the answer must address the otters and how/why they have actually helped the abalones when we would expect them to harm the abalones.
Answer C does this by showing how the otters make it easier for the abalones to get their food.
The problem with Answer D is that it doesn't explain or resolve the paradox at all. It doesn't explain how or why the presence of otters has helped the abalones when they should be harming the abalones (since they eat abalones). The fact that smaller abalones reproduce more rapidly than large abalones would be true regardless of the otters, and doesn't explain why the otters have helped the abalones rather than harming them.
The first step in solving this question is recognizing that this is a Resolve the Paradox question. In the stimulus to these questions, we are given two facts that seem odd together, almost as if they appear to contradict each other. Our job is to find an answer that explains how both sides of the paradox can be true.
Here, the paradox is that, on the one hand, for large abalone shellfish to develop, they must spend less energy on finding food and avoiding predators. On the other hand, large abalone shellfish developed only after otters were abundant in the area. The reason that this appears to be a paradox is that otters eat abalones, so we'd expect the appearance of otters to be harmful to (or even prevent) large abalone, when in fact they actually helped them.
Our prephrase should be that somehow, the otters are indirectly helping the abalones. One possibility would be that the otters would be scaring off other predators. Another would be that the otters are somehow providing food for the abalones or at least making it easier for the abalones to get their food.
The key point is that the answer must address the otters and how/why they have actually helped the abalones when we would expect them to harm the abalones.
Answer C does this by showing how the otters make it easier for the abalones to get their food.
The problem with Answer D is that it doesn't explain or resolve the paradox at all. It doesn't explain how or why the presence of otters has helped the abalones when they should be harming the abalones (since they eat abalones). The fact that smaller abalones reproduce more rapidly than large abalones would be true regardless of the otters, and doesn't explain why the otters have helped the abalones rather than harming them.