#15 - Weaken

[Basia W]

Good evening,

I chose B for 15 and am not entirely sure how C is correct.

thank you for your time,

very best,

Basia

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, Basia,

B may be true but would not undermine the author's conclusion in the last sentence - which is both that kin recognition among the tiger salamanders preserves their own lives and is not meant to aid the survival of relatives and the species.

C is correct, because it would undermine the second part of the author's conclusion by showing that tiger salamanders practice kin recognition both to preserve their own lives and to benefit relatives.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[Basia W]

Thank you!

[gweatherall]

I actually chose E for this one, and I am bothered that E is incorrect. My reasoning was as follows: if cannabalistic tiger salamanders are immune to diseases that they would otherwise contract when eating their relatives, then wouldn't that negate the idea that tiger salamanders avoiding eating their relatives was merely for self preservation? Surely if they were immune to the diseases, they wouldn't need to avoid eating their relatives?

I also didn't think that C was correct, because avoiding inbreeding is surely just another basic evolutionary theory reason for kin recognition. Unless we're making a distinction between direct self-preservation and "gene preservation"/protection offspring.

Thanks!

[nicholaspavic]

Hi gweatherall,

Great question. And recall that last paragraph to compare to Answer Option (E). Do you know whether the disease caused by that bacterium is one that the cannibalistic salamander is immune to? That's the undue inference that they are trying to get you to make in (E). You don't know what the LSAC means by "certain diseases."

Remember the conclusion that Lucas pointed out. That that kin recognition among the tiger salamanders preserves their own lives and is not meant to aid the survival of relatives and the species.

Remember also that this is a weakening quetion. Answer (C) directly negates that second part of the conclusion by the author, that its not about the relatives' survival. That's why it is correct here.

Thanks for the great question!

[gweatherall]

Thanks for your helpful answer, Nicholas! I'm frustrated with myself for making that undue inference, but it's a good reminder not to do it on test day.

The second half of that, re. benefiting relatives vs. oneself, still bugs me a little because I'm used to equating natural selection and self-selection with gene propagation- in other words, to protect one's children is to protect oneself. BUT- I think that might be an example of bringing in dangerous outside knowledge.

[ArizonaRobin]

I am frustrated with the explanation given above as C is actually an opposite answer that SUPPORTS the conclusion. Your explanation was because it only supports one part of the conclusion it actually weakens it, but that doesn't make sense to me at all. If it supports it at all it strengthens it. In fact, the way that it supports the first part of the conclusion infers the remaining part of the conclusion as well, that the purpose was ONLY for individual preservation and not for that of the relatives. I understand that none of the other answers work well, which is why I struggled with this one, but supporting the conclusion even in part does not logically weaken it.

Perhaps someone can approach this from a different angle so that it makes more sense to me.

[atierney]

Hi Arizonarobbin,

I actually don't think answer choice C supports the conclusion at all. Let's examine closely what it states. "Kin recognition helps tiger salamanders avoid inbreeding that may be life-threatening to their offspring."

So, this is a little tricky, as there is the word "that," the pronoun, which, here, is referring to the inbreeding and not kin recognition, the subject of the sentence. This inbreeding is the "that" (and not, as you might have surmised, the kin recognition) which is life-threatening to the offspring. In other words, the kin recognition helps tiger salamanders from making sweet romance with their cousins, which as pleasant (and innocuous, relatively speaking) as it may be for them (the parent tiger salamanders), probably doesn't produce offspring that will win best in show (or best in swim!) at any tiger salamander contest anytime soon (I love those shows).

So the point is, answer choice C posits a situation in which the kin recognition helps only the offspring, which is the exact opposite of what is stated in the last lines of the passage: "...simply as a means by which an organism preserves its own life, not as a means to aid in relatives’ survival." This is why it most certainly does weaken the conclusion found in said last lines.

Let me know if you have further questions.

[PresidentLSAT]

This question was so nasty omg I cried lol. I got it right by POE. I still don't actually understand it because of how convoluted the last paragraph reads. Please let me know the errors in my reasoning.

If I can summarize the last paragraph, Kin recognition for TS is different from what we've been told in the rest of the passage. For this species, looking out for their siblings isn't in their best interest because they risk being infected by a deadly bacterium. Still, I'm lost lol

A. Many means majority. But the problem here is that 49% of the cases that may contradict this answer choice is too prominent of a sample to validate this answer choice.

B. I didn't think this was relevant or gave me anything. I want to weaken the claim about how Kin recognition by TS is about self-preservation. What determines whether they are carnivorous or omnivorous isn't something I will care about. I also thought to myself what if it was a "vegan vs vegetarian" kind of situation? Will it matter?
If it's not contained in their genetic make and is probably something that is acquired via natural selection, does it really make a difference here? Still, we're not going anywhere. This is the kind of mental gymnastics my brain does lol

C tells me Kin recognition helps TS avoid breeding with close relatives to avoid unhealthy babies. The passage says Kin recognition for them is self-preservation, so I'm not exactly sure what connection to make. I chose this answer because it was the one I couldn't argue against with sufficient evidence.

D. I didn't think this was a strong weakner. One less offspring could be attributed to multiple factors and I also didn't think singling out noncannibalistic TS was strong enough because the passage says "either omnivorous or carnivorous."

E. The cannibalistic v noncannibalistic wasn't doing much for me. Certain diseases could be every other disease but the disease that has an impact on their survival. What if they are immune to a cold or diarrhea? That's not significant.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi President,

I can see this one was tricky for you. I start by focusing on the argument the question points to---here, that salamanders are TOTALLY and solely self interested in their avoidance of eating kin. It's for their own individual benefit, not the benefit of their relatives. To weaken that, we will want to show a situation where the avoiding kin eating where it would not benefit the individual.

Answer choice (A): This doesn't weaken the specific relationship that we need to weaken. It's about the connection between the bacteria and cannibalism.

Answer choice (B): This is about the genetics of dietary preferences, not about which specific salamanders are eaten by which other salamanders

Answer choice (C): This is what we were looking for. This would give the individual salamanders who are recognizing kin no individual advantage, but would give their genetic kin an advantage. In-breeding impacts the individual breeder not at all. It only impacts future generations. It would weaken the idea that kin recognition in salamanders is only for the benefit of the individual salamander.

Answer choice (D): This also isn't clear about kin recognition, and how it plays a role.

Answer choice (E): Again, this wouldn't impact kin recognition clearly. Rule it out.

This question is just so much more manageable with a good prephrase. Without that, I can see where it would be hard to focus on the relevant issue in the answer choices.

Hope that helps!