#21 - Evolution does not always optimize survival of an

[ali124]

Hi!
Can someone explain why (E) is incorrect? I understand why (C) is correct, but I thought there may be some support for (E) as well and wanted to see if my line of reasoning is valid.

I thought the example of male moose with giant antlers act as both an aid in survival (through evolutionary advantage in mating) and a threat (through vulnerability to predators). Thus, I thought that "self-contradictory" in (E) could be supported as giant antlers serve contradictory/conflicting functions. I see that the stimulus compares evolution and survival and thus the issue is perhaps contradictions between concepts rather than within. Is this the issue with (E)? Is it inaccurate to regard "evolutionary advantage" as aiding survival?

Thank you.

[James Finch]

Hi Ali,

Pointing out an internal contradiction requires a contradiction to exist within an argument. This could be two premises that would seemingly cancel each other out, or a premise that would lead one to a conclusion opposite to the one actually made.

The issue with (E) is that there isn't any internal contradiction: the claim is that bigger=better, because bigger antlers usually win in a fight for mates. One premise, one conclusion, no contradiction. But then a potential drawback is introduced as counterevidence: bigger antlers also hinder escape from predators. This isn't contradictory, just an additional premise that weaken the original claim, similar to how just today there are news stories about a study purporting to undermine the decades-old scientific claims that eating red meat is detrimental to human health. New information doesn't mean that a previous argument is internally contradictory, just that there is new information that may or may not undermine the earlier argument.

Hope this helps!

[ser219]

Is the use of "example" in A the same as the use of "counterexample" in B?

[Adam Tyson]

Generally speaking an example is given in support of a claim, while a counterexample is given against a claim. In this case, though, the way "example" is used in answer A is really describing a counterexample - an example to cast doubt on something. So in that sense, answers A and C are saying the same thing - a specific case that is used to argue against something.

The thing that makes C the better choice here is the difference between "competing argument" and "general claim." The stimulus never presents a competing argument. There are no premises offered in support of evolution always optimizing survival. Instead of an argument for that position, and then a counterexample against it, we are given only a general claim, without support, and then a challenge to that general claim by way of a counterexample. A very tricky and subtle difference!

[Cobblestone]

Hi, I have to squint a little bit to see how claim and argument differ. It sounds coherent enough for me to select AC C on that basis alone. However, I am wondering if there's another basis to select C: the counterexample.
The stimulus contains an empirical example of the cost benefit of large antlers-- good for fighting, yet bad for entanglement in trees. This alone though, is not enough to refute the general claim. So the counter-example of half size antlers is presented as a technique of reason to dispel the claim that evolution always optimizes survival.
Am I attributing too much significance to counterexample here? Or is this another angle to arrive at the correct AC?

[Robert Carroll]

Cobblestone,

"Argument" and "claim" are very different. An argument is an attempt to string together a chain of reasoning to prove a point. Arguments have claims as parts - the claims made in the premises are intended to demonstrate the claim made in the conclusion. Claims can also exist in total isolation - I can claim "I prefer chicken to steak." I'm not attempting to prove that - I'm just claiming it. I'm not using it as evidence for anything or adducing evidence to prove it, so there's no argument here. Compare that to this:

I prefer chicken to steak.
The chicken at this restaurant is excellent, whereas the steak is subpar.
So, there are several good reasons for me to order the chicken at this restaurant.

This is an argument. My original claim is a part of this argument - it's one of the premises.

This is why answer choice (A) is wrong. There is no indication in the stimulus that anyone has ever argued that evolution always optimizes the survival of an organism.

The example of antlers is a specific case showing that evolution does not always optimize survival of an organism. Anyone who thought the opposite would face, in the antler case, a counterexample to their belief. That's why answer choice (C) is correct.

Robert Carroll

[cbettaieb]

I understand why C is correct, but I still don't see how E is wrong. Maybe I don't really understand what self-contradictory means, so could you please give me an example?
If the argument is undermining the claim that evolution always optimizes survival, by showing that it can do that, but it can also undermine survival, doesn't that mean that the claim is indeed self-contradictory?
I am taking the international LSAT in less than 72 hours, so I would truly appreciate any feedback on how to deal with questions like this, especially when answer choices are so abstract.
Thank you in advance!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi cbettaieb!

Apologies if this isn't the best example, but the following seems self-contradictory: "The only thing we can know for certain is that we can know nothing for certain." This type of statement doesn't occur in the stimulus in this question.

If the argument is undermining the claim that evolution always optimizes survival, by showing that it can do that, but it can also undermine survival, doesn't that mean that the claim is indeed self-contradictory?

I don't see self-contradiction in this. Note that the claim in the stimulus is that "Evolution does not always optimize survival of an organism." The stimulus doesn't undermine this but rather goes on to show how this is true, using the antler size of male moose as an example. The stimulus then reinforces this point by suggesting that a smaller size would actually be optimal for survival.