#19 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Purpose/Function

[lilmissunshine]

Hello,

I was debating between (A) and (B) but ended up choosing (B). I thought evolutionary game theory was presented as an alternative to a traditional theory instead of approach. Could you explain why (A) is better than (B)? Thanks a lot!

[lilmissunshine]

bump

[Adam Tyson]

I'm with you on the concerns about "approach," lilmiss, and I was looking for an answer about offering a new hypothesis to help explain some animal behavior that didn't fit the old one. Still, "approach" can work if you think of it as being a way to view an analyze that behavior, a way to "come at the problem." If we are approaching the problem of understanding why those spiders behave in a certain way, the traditional approach isn't as useful as the proposed new approach.

Answer B should be quickly eliminated, because the author's purpose isn't to describe a phenomenon (what would that phenomenon be, exactly?) and he didn't offer "examples" (plural) but just one case (the spiders) to make his point about traditional theory not always working. The other example (turtles) illustrated the traditional theory. "Describe" is too weak for what he is trying to do here, because it's more like he is trying to demonstrate something.

If the prephrase here is "demonstrate that a new hypothesis better fits certain evidence than the old one does," then I think answer A is the closest match, and answer B should fall away. I don;t love it, but I hate it less than I hate the others, and sometimes that has to be good enough!