- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 3916
- Joined: Apr 14, 2011
Answer E gives us no help, because it tells us nothing about why a species with poor camouflage and no other special protection has managed to survive predation. So what if their camo is not as big a problem at night? Why aren't they being preyed on? I do also think it's a big stretch to interpret that answer as "maybe it is not a liability at night at all," and we shouldn't be making strained interpretations of plain language. That gets us into the realm of rationalizing bad answers and talking ourselves out of good ones. If one thing is not as bad as another, and the first thing is pretty bad, the second thing is probably still not very good.
But answer C needs no help and no special interpretations. If predators see differently than we do, then perhaps what seems to us humans to be unlikely to provide good camouflage might actually be great for dealing with that animal's particular predators. We don't have to know what the difference is, and it isn't about being better or worse. It's just that some predators see things differently than we do, so our perception of the effectiveness of that camouflage may not be applicable. Our evidence for the claim that it "seems unlikely to provide effective camouflage" becomes weak. Answer C is, at its core, "we could be wrong." That's enough to contribute to a resolution, even if it doesn't fully resolve the paradox.
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam