PT87.S2.Q2 - Some small animals will instinctively go limp

Comments

• rubberboot Member

  April 2021 26 karma

  Alright so this is a RRE question, so you want to find an answer that explains the paradox. In this case, the author believes the animals "playing dead" has no survival value.

  I narrowed it down to (A) and (B) as well, but here was my line of thinking:

  Answer (A) is an attractive choice, but... does this solve the paradox? I saw this answer as reiterating the information found in the first sentence of the stimulus. How does the information found here answer the paradox identified? Remember, the paradox is animals playing dead DESPITE the predator meaning to eat them whether it plays dead or not. There must be an alternative! There has to be a survival value here.

  Answer (B) is way better at justifying the "play dead" behavior. Oh, so animals play dead in the hopes that when the predator leaves their food (prey), the prey has a chance to avoid being eaten. Here, we see a reasoning that justifiably highlights the survival value.

  Hope this helps!
• lsat5ever Core Member

  April 2021 79 karma

  @rubberboot thank you! so does a resolve the paradox question have to address the conclusion? ie, the conclusion was about survival value so the answer choice should show survival value?
• lsat5ever Core Member

  April 2021 79 karma

  @rubberboot I definitely see how B is a better answer, but doesn't A still resolve the paradox by explaining how the playing dead and the fact that the predator means to eat them can coexist? If you can explain how the two facts can coexist, doesn't this indeed resolve the paradox as well?
• Give Me the Formuoli Member

  April 2021 55 karma

  @lsat5ever I'm not sure if there's always a conclusion in a RRE/Paradox question like there is for a stimulus that contains an argument (Weakening/Strengthening/SA/NA/most questions on LR).

  I think PT87.S2.Q2 is a unique RRE question in that the Biologist straight up acknowledges the paradox: "it is hard to see how playing dead can have survival value in this situation."

  Instead, RRE/Paradox questions seem to provide context/facts/information about a situation, and introduces a puzzling new phenomenon in that context. For PT87.S2.Q2, it would look something like this:

  Context/facts/info: Whether or not the prey play dead, predators eat their prey.
  Puzzling new phenomenon: Some small animals play dead anyways when caught by predators.

  ^^^ This is usually what it would look like. This should makes us think, "ok well if the predators are going to eat the prey anyways, there's GOTTA be another reason why these small animals play dead right?" This often means finding an alternative explanation other than what is already mentioned in the stimulus. Hope this helps.
• 1 Like

  Burt Reynolds Alum Member Sage ⭐

  April 2021 957 karma

  Hey @lsat5ever - maybe I can help. The paradox in the stimulus is that (A) animals go limp when caught by predators and (B) if they'll be eaten either way, there doesn't seem to be any survival benefit. The question is really asking "why are these animals going limp if they're going to be eaten by the predator either way"?

  The stimulus ignores that some predators wait to eat their prey. If this is the case, then their actions have a survival benefit.

  AC A, on the other hand, doesn't answer the question of "why are these animals going limp when they're caught by a predator?" Assuming AC A is the case, I still don't know why they're playing dead when they're about to die.

  For example: Let's say a possum plays dead when it hears a car horn or sees a person running (like AC A). Now a Badger catches the possum and is going to have a possum snack. Does the fact that the possum is spooked by cars and people explain why the possum is playing dead while caught by the Badger? Nope. But what if the Badger hunts in the morning and eats at night, leaving the presumably dead possum alone all day?

  Hopefully that helps.
• 2 Likes

  Give Me the Formuoli Member

  April 2021 55 karma

  @lsat5ever I think the problem with A is that it assumes that an attack by a predator is ALWAYS accompanied by a loud noise or unexpected movement. I sympathize with you because to me, it seems like a reasonable assumption to make.

  If I really try to nitpick, I would say that the prey would actually expect the predator's movements because they'd probably know instinctively that they're being hunted. For example, a rabbit might expect a cheetah to move a certain way when hunting the rabbit. This doesn't change the fact that the cheetah would end up nabbing the rabbit regardless.
• lsat5ever Core Member

  April 2021 79 karma

  @rubberboot @Give Me the Formuoli @Burt Reynolds you guys are the best! thank you so much for clearing that up!