#14 - Must Be True

[blade21cn]

I've difficulty eliminating (A) - The author of passage A is more interested in examining the logical implications of evolutionary psychology than the author of passage B is. To me, this answer choice can be interpreted to mean the author of passage A examines the logical implications of evolutionary psychology, while the author of passage B does not. Passage A clearly does that. It poses the challenge of applying evolutionary psychology to explain altruism in ¶1 and prods through in ¶2 and ¶3. Author of passage B is clearly not a fan of evolutionary psychology as a valid theory at all, let alone interested in examining its logical implications. Thanks!

[Paul Marsh]

Hi blade! You are correct that our Passage B author does not appear to be a big fan of evolutionary psychology. However, that doesn't mean she doesn't explore its logical implications. In fact, the author of Passage B discusses the implications of evolutionary psychology throughout the passage, primarily in order to cast some doubt upon them. For example, when she says, "Thus, what seemed to be your unsurprising interest in your child’s well-being turns out to be your genes’ conspiracy to propagate themselves," this is a sardonic exploration of one logical implication of evolutionary psychology. So it would be a mistake to say that Passage A's author discusses implications of evolutionary psychology but Passage B's author does not. It's much more correct to say that Passage A's author is a fan of evolutionary psychology than Passage B's author; this is essentially what Answer Choice (B) is saying. Hope that helps!

[mebckly]

Hi guys,

I got this answer right but only through process of elimination, and felt unsure because "committed" felt like too strong of a adjective for author A's feelings toward evolutionary psych. I was just wondering if you could point me to where the text goes from explanation of a theory versus being committed to the theory.

Thanks!

[atierney]

Hi,

I think the word committed, when in the context of human relationships in general, can definitely a pretty scary word. However, in the context of explaining human relationships, at least the tendency to exhibit altruistic, the word committed is relatively straightforward. My reading of passage A was that the author really wasn't trying to "explain" evolutionary psychology as much as they were trying to explain away potential holes to the coherence of evolutionary psychology as an explanation of human behavior in general. The author spends most of the time showing how apparently unselfish behavior can nevertheless be considered through a framework of selfish action. That is to say, rather than acknowledge the inherent paradox that is unselfish behavior, the author attempts to double down, and explain the behavior using the theory itself. This definitely, in my mind, shows that the author is committed to using the theory to explain all aspects of human behavior, even those that don't apparently fit neatly into the framework.

Now if you're looking to a specific point in the passage, then I would look no further than the start of the second paragraph, where the author answers their own question posed in the first paragraph identifying the apparent paradox using the evolutionary framework.

Let me know if you have further questions.

[macrosia]

Since both passages discussed evolutionary psychology] answer choice (B) is narrow enough to describe a difference between the authors' approaches on that particular subject.
bakırköy psikoloji

[Jeff Wren]

Hi macrosia,

That is exactly correct!

And notice how tricky the test makers are with Answer D (the most popular answer); it looks so good except for the use of "evolutionary theory in general," which is really easy for many students to miss when they are rushing. If this answer had used "evolutionary psychology" instead of "evolutionary theory in general," it would have been perfect!

Of course, these passages aren't about "evolutionary theory in general" (such as whether humans evolved from apes, etc.).