#21 - Evolution does not always optimize survival of an

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[bli2016]

Hello, I was between A and C and I was wondering if A is wrong because there is no "competing argument" in the stimulus. In pre-phrasing the answer, I recognized that the stimulus is trying to disprove the argument that evolution always optimizes the survival of an organism with the example of the moose. It seems like the answer choices A and C differ from each other in their identification of the claim that "evolution always optimizes the survival of an organism" as a "competing argument" versus a "general claim". How do we differentiate the two terms on the test? Would "citing an example to cast doubt on a competing argument" look like: some people think XYZ... however, [example]...?
Thanks!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Bli, You've pretty much got it here: there is no "competing argument." There is a "general claim" (evolution always optimises survival) that the author contests by citing a counterexample. Well done!

[JustKeepStudying]

Hey,

Could you elaborate on why "evolution always optimizes survival of an organism" isn't a competing argument? Like the person above asked, what makes this a general claim instead of a competing argument? What does a competing argument have that this doesn't?

[Claire Horan]

Hi Bli2016,

I am so glad you asked this question because it leads to discussing a really important distinction.

An argument is one or more premises given in support of a conclusion + that conclusion. Powerscore uses the metaphor of a house--the walls are premises and the roof is the conclusion. The argument is the whole house, composed of premises (including possibly subsidiary conclusions) and a main conclusion.

In your question, you say:

I recognized that the stimulus is trying to disprove the argument that evolution always optimizes the survival of an organism with the example of the moose.

But, to be accurate, you need to replace the word "argument" with claim, assertion, statement, etc.

(A) would work as a correct answer if the stimulus went through a complete argument that concluding that evolution always optimizes, then cited the example of moose antlers.

Great question!

[mN2mmvf]

I didn't think (C) was correct because no one is actually claiming that evolution always optimizes survival of an organism. Where is that in the argument? The speaker is simply saying that "evolution does not always optimize survival." I don't see how she is "challenging a general claim" when no one is actually making that claim for her to challenge. That's like me observing that summer days are not always sunny. It doesn't mean that someone else ever claimed that they were, in fact, always sunny.

I thought (D) was a better answer, because the suggestion that evolution does optimize survival seems much more correctly characterized as "an opposing view" instead of a claim that's "being challenged." To those with this opposing view, giant antlers optimize survival by allowing males to fight each other for mates. (This reminds me of an LSAT passage which discussed animal rituals that simulate combat without actually engaging in it, so as not to hurt themselves.) But the speaker is disputing the relevance of that example, because, according to her, the antlers actually have big drawbacks for survival as well. They're really a better example for her own argument, she says, which is that evolution does not always optimize survival. Thus, disputing the relevance of an example thought to support an opposing view.

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi mN2,

A "general claim" does not have to indicate a "widely held" or "mostly agreed upon" claim. Rather, "general" can also mean "broad" or "not specific." In this sense a general claim is close to a generalization.

In this sense, I would actually say that statements like "milkshakes are nutritious" or "rush hour traffic is relaxing" are general or broad claims, even if no one would ever claim that.

Even if you thought that choice (C) required the stimulus to prove that some people held that claim, we can apply the same critique to answer choice (D). This answer choice describes "an oppposing view." If "a general claim" required some people to believe the claim, then I would suppose that "an opposing view" would require some people to hold that view.

The example of moose antlers is very relevant to idea of evolution.

[erust2]

I chose C, by I am still unsure what the “counter example” is.

[Pragmatism]

I chose C, by I am still unsure what the “counter example” is.

Piggybacking of off this, could you please elaborate the difference between an analogy and a counterexample?

Also, if answer choice B had read, “questioning the validity to a generalization by employing an analogy,” then would that have been the right answer? Assuming, option C wasn’t presented.

Finally, is answer choice C superior to B because B is practically saying that the stimulus began with an analogy to discredit a general claim, whereas C is saying that the stimulus began with a general claim and a counterexample aka an analogy is used to challenge it?

[Adam Tyson]

In the world of the LSAT, an example (including a counter-example) is always a specific case. It means looking at one instance and using that instance as evidence for or against something. An analogy, however, is a comparison, which need not be very specific, although it can be. Take a look at these hypotheticals to illustrate the difference:

1. I know that clean energy sources like wind and solar power will ultimately benefit mankind for the same reason that my personal hygiene benefits me in my daily life. I smell good and look good, which contributes to my overall attractiveness and success. Cleaner is always better!

2. Installing solar panels on all new homes in a city will help improve air quality there and reduce the strain on the local electric grid. This is borne out by the experience of the city of San Andreo, which got exactly those benefits after they began to require that all new homes be fitted with solar panels.

In the first argument, I used an analogy, comparing clean energy to personal hygiene. I gave no example of a benefit of clean energy. The fact that I looked at my personal experience doesn't make this rise to the level of an example, because it was focused entirely on comparing two things that I claim are sufficiently similar.

In the second case, I argued by way of example. I didn't compare one city to another, but made a general claim about clean energy and supported it with the single, specific case of one city.

In short, example = a single specific case that supports a more general claim, and analogy = comparison between two things that are different but which the author believes to be sufficiently similar.

This argument employed no analogy at all, so no answer that brought up an analogy could be correct. There was no comparison between two different things that the author felt were similar. Moose were used as an example of a more general claim, and were not compared to anything else.