#24- Specific Reference, Must Be True, Purpose, Organization

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[mokkyukkyu]

Why is D wrong and E correct?
I thought D is right because in the last paragraph the author introduces other scientist and the author also asks "does it ever actually occur" so I thought those suggest different directions or they need further research to show whether what the theory says is correct or not.
Why is D wrong?

Thanks,

[Adam Tyson]

While it may be true that the last paragraph implies that more research is needed before we can definitively answer the questions presented, there are two problems that I see with answer D.

First, the answer says that the paragraph suggests several possible directions for research. To pick this answer, you would have to be able to find what those possible directions are. Does the paragraph send us down any specific paths? It does not, so this answer does not explain anything that actually happened in the passage. It may have implied that more research was needed, but it suggested no possible directions for that research.

Second, is this what the paragraph serves to do as a whole, or is this just a part of something bigger? I say the latter. The question asks us what the primary purpose of the paragraph is, and suggesting more research is only a minor part in a paragraph that is primarily concerned with exploring and explaining certain evidence that may tend to support the theory advanced by Steele and his colleagues.

Don't lose sight of that question and what is asking you to accomplish. This is more than just "which of the following is true" - it's "what is the primary purpose." Stay focused on what the question asks of you, and answers like D won't draw you in so easily.

[freddythepup]

Hi, for this question can you please explain how to understand what choice E is saying? I didn't really like the other answer choices, but I did not get what E meant by "to indicate the nature of the evidence of neo-Lamarckian..." what does indicating the nature mean? I could not see how this related to what was presented in the last paragraph. To me, the last paragraph was talking about how Steele found some circumstantial evidence, which other biologists think there are other explanations for. I don't see how this shows the "nature" of the neo-Lamarckian way. Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

You've got the answer right there in your hands, Freddy! That nature of the evidence is that it is circumstantial, and also that it is not entirely convincing because there could be other explanations. By "the nature of the evidence" the author means what kind of evidence, and/or what characteristics it has.

[racoonprinter]

Why is B incorrect?

[Adam Tyson]

The last paragraph of the passage does not dismiss Steele's theory, racoonprinter, but rather supplements it with a discussion of the circumstantial evidence Steele offers for it. It's helping to support that theory, or at least explain some of the potentially useful evidence in its favor. Answer B is describing a much more aggressive, negative paragraph than we have here, one which would have to say something like "but given the complete absence of evidence in support of the theory, further consideration of it is unwarranted, and it should be dismissed as nothing more than mere speculation rather than serious science."

[albkobe]

Hi, Can someone explain why choice A is incorrect? Seems like there is a hint of negativity and skepticism with some objections like the Evo mechanisms aren't observed, other biologist suggest less radical explanations...

Thank you!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi albkobe!

The primary function of the last paragraph is not "to present various objections that have been raised against the neo-Lamarckian theory."

Break down each sentence of that last paragraph:
1st sentence: asks a question--even if the process is possible, does it occur?
2nd sentence: tells us that we can't observe these processes directly, and must use circumstantial evidence (this isn't an objection to neo-Lamarckian theory--it's simply the nature of the evidence that must be used to study evolutionary processes)
3rd and 4th sentences: Steele and colleagues claims that they have found evidence to support their theory of the evolutionary process
5th and 6th sentences: Other biologists think there may be other, less radical explanations

None of these are a direct objection to the neo-Lamarckian theory. Even the viewpoint of the "other biologists" is just that they are not convinced by the evidence Steele presents and that there might be a simpler explanation. And this disagreement over the definitiveness of Steele's evidence only occurs in those last two sentences, not the paragraph as a whole.

Thus, answer choice (E) is better supported. The paragraph tells us that due to the nature of evolutionary processes, we can only use circumstantial evidence, outlines the evidence Steel and colleagues claim supports their theory, and then tells us that other biologists think there may be other explanations for that evidence. Thus, the paragraph as a whole functions to indicate the nature of the evidence for neo-Lamarckian theory.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[lschlueter]

Hi! Why does (A) various objections not work? is it that "objection" is too strong of a word for what the author is doing?