#2 - Biologist: Some small animals will instinctively go

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[christinecwt]

Hi Team - Sorry that I am not sure why Answer Choice E is incorrect? can anyone explain? Also I can't see the relationship between Answer Choice B and the stimulus... really appreciate if you can explain as well Many thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

christinecwt,

Answer choice (E) is not about the animals in the stimulus. The fact that other animals who don't play dead can fight off predators doesn't explain why the animals in the stimulus do play dead.

If a predator will often hide its prey before eating it, what would happen to the animal that plays dead? It'll be taken by the predator to a hiding place. The animal now has a chance to escape, because the predator has hidden it rather than eating it right away. So the predator, thinking its prey is dead and thus able to be eaten at any time, will hide it and then lose it. This explains the value of playing dead.

Robert Carroll

[christinecwt]

Hi Robert Thanks for your explanation! It helps a lot!

[elijahpitt123]

I was in between A and B on this one, and I can't figure out why A is incorrect. My thought process was that animals would be startled by the presence of their predator and go limp even if it had no survival benefits. I thought B was incorrect because it seemed like a leap to assume that animals would play dead and then run away when the predator left. Would appreciate any input on this, I never usually struggle with such an early question.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, elijahpitt!

Good question!

On Resolve the Paradox questions, we must find two propositions that do not seem to make sense simultaneously. In other words, there is a paradoxical situation or some kind of unexpected discrepancy for which we must build a bridge.

Isolate and describe these two situations:

1. Playing "dead" has survival value.
2. The predators planned to eat the animal anyways.

Ask yourself, "How could it be possible that playing 'dead' has survival value even though the predators planned to eat these animals?"

The expected outcome would be that the limp animal would just get gobbled up. We need something in an answer that indicates with a playing "dead" animal, meat is back off the menu for the predator.

Answer choice (A), if true, might indicate another circumstance in which the animals play "dead." However, first, this actually makes the playing "dead" behavior somewhat more inexplicable. Not only do we not understand the survival value of playing "dead" with a predator but also now have another weird playing "dead" situation for which we have not accounted.

Second, even with this explanation, it's still chow time for the predators. We're left still wondering how this behavior could have survival value. We're back at square one.

Answer choice (B), bridges the gap between these two circumstances. We may assume by plausible commonsense standards that a once-playing "dead" animal may, upon finding itself left in a hiding place, make its escape. While there are no guarantees, the information in this answer does give the "most help to resolve the apparent paradox."

I hope this helps!