PT107.S1.Q12 > Analytics

Hide analysis

It is well known that many species adapt to their environment, but it is usually assumed that only the most highly evolved species alter their environment in ways that aid their own survival. ████████ ████ ██████████████ ██ ████████ █████ ███████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ ████████ █ ███ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ █████ █████████ █████ █████ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ ███████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ████ █████ █████ █████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ████ █████ ████ ████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ████████ ███ █████████

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

After mentioning the well-known fact that many species adapt to their environment, the author points out a common assumption people make related to this fact: that the only species that modify their own environment to aid their survival are the most highly evolved ones. The author asserts that, contrary to this assumption, this characteristic is actually common. The rest of the stimulus offers a detailed example of certain species of plankton as support for the author's claim.

12.

Which one of the following ██████████ █████████ ███ █████████████ ████████ █████████

Question Type

Method of reasoning or descriptive

The author's goal is to counter a view that is often assumed: that only the most highly evolved species can modify their own environments to benefit their survival. This author claims that such behavior is "quite common" — i.e., not limited to the most highly evolved species — and gives one specific example, certain species of plankton, as support for her claim and against the initial view.

It's important to be very clear on the distinctive aspects of the author's strategy: countering/responding to a view, and using one specific example. For a Method of Reasoning question like this one, where the answer choices use very general language, it can be tempting to always try to map each of the "parts" of every answer choice onto the stimulus to see if they match. Sometimes it's faster to see that an answer choice is just saying something completely different than the structure we've analyzed for — countering a common view, with a specific example as support — and not spend time looking for what's not there.

A general principle ██ ████ ██ ███████ █ █████ ████ █████ █ ██████████ ████ ██ █████ ████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██████

The only "particular case" mentioned in this stimulus is the example of the plankton. But there is no "general principle" by which the example "justifies" any stated claim. The example is used directly as support to counter a claim — that only the most highly evolved species modify their environments to benefit their survival.

An explanation of ███ █ █████████████ ██████████ █████ ████ ████ █████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ██████

The author does not discuss any phenomenon that is "controversial." We cannot assume that, because certain species of plankton act contrary to what some people would expect, that the behavior of these plankton is controversial. Perhaps those people just haven't considered how the planktons' behavior should correct their assumptions.

This answer choice also just gets the structure of the argument wrong. The author never claims that something did actually happen, and never uses a hypothetical example of how it could have happened to support that claim.

A generalization about ███ ██████████ █████ █████ █ ███████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██ ███████████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████

Even if you assume "being highly evolved" is a "condition" under which the "process" of modifying the environment to ensure survival can occur, remember that that is the view the author rejects. The author only says that this behavior or process is "quite common," meaning that the "condition" imposed by the original view — being a highly evolved species — isn't valid.

The author never mentions any new conditions — she never says that "all" species can necessarily do this, or anything like that — so her position can't be called a "generalization about the conditions under which a certain process can occur." Besides, the stimulus only examines one case as an example, not several.

11%

A counterexample to █ ████████ █████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████████

This is correct. The position being challenged is the general assumption that only the most highly evolved species can alter their environment to aid their own survival. The example the author provides to counter this position is the case of certain species of plankton.

80%

A detailed example ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ████████

The author does not compare advantages of different strategies. The plankton example only talks about one strategy. The point is not the specific strategy itself, but the fact that the plankton are modifying their environment, which allows them to function as a counterexample to the general assumption mentioned earlier in the stimulus.

PrepTest 107 - Section 1 - Question 12

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action