Nick: "Doing so would be disloyal to a friend of the university." What if Nick believes they donate because they are a friend of the university, not that they are a friend of the university because they donate? He doesn't want to be disloyal to friends, not to donors. We have no idea if he feels the same way to donors who are not friends of the university, or if he believes all donors are friends of the university.

Loyalty to friends and loyalty to donors are two separate things that AC C is conflating.

This is a bad correct answer, but it is still the most reasonable leap to make.

"One’s offspring are part of one’s relatives." This conflates qualitative differences between the similarity of relatives and ones own genes. Relatives have SIMILAR genes to ones self, But offspring are qualitatively superior conduits of ones own genes. Offspring are not relatives, they are literally made form the same genes as oneself. This is not the same biological principle as inclusive fitness. The survival of ones offspring is the arguably the only measure that matters in direct fitness of an individual.

stim

Bacterium X is more deadly to relatives than to non relatives.

Therefore self preservation is a possible explanation for kin recognition.

(this assumes that the bacterium are more likely to escape the GI tract to infect the cannibal, than it is to be infected by other mechanisms related to their proximity. Killing and eating infected individuals in the vicinity could DECREASE the likelihood of that individuals infection if the likelihood of transfer from proximity is 80% and the likelihood from consumption is 79%. Given they don't know which individuals are infected, it would encourage cannibalism. As a biologist, this is how i would attack this argument.)

C

No, Kin recognition helps tiger salamanders avoid inbreeding that may be life-threatening to their offspring.

They recognize their kin in order to increase the odds of the survival of their own genes. They are preserving their own life and not that of relatives. This is another mechanism of support for the statement in the passage. The only valid excuse for this answer requires you to assume a professional biologist thinks that the well being of ones offspring is somehow a counter argument to saying they don't care about their siblings, they care about themselves. "No, they care about their kids." is agreement. Both statements are arguing that they are promoting their own genes, not those of their siblings.

This question doesn't have a good answer, but this one is clearly worse than others.

I've got to miss some days this summer, this is so helpful!

More of this please! It would be even more helpful if the puzzle did not come already assembled.

Is it helpful to memorize the described sets or not, even knowing they are over exclusive and inclusive?