#14

[kaitlinprece]

Hi!

For this question I was stuck between D and E. Can you explain how I know which answer choice is better because I choose D and don't understand how it is wrong.

Thanks for the help!

[Adam Tyson]

Happy to help, kaitlinprece, and welcome to the Forum!

The evidence that we need to select answer E is found at the end of the first paragraph:

The theory has helped to explain previously mysterious phenomena, including the evolution of social insect species like the honeybee, most of whose members do not produce offspring and exist only to nurture relatives.

The theory being discussed there is the Inclusive Fitness theory, which the author tells us works within the concept of natural selection (see the lines just a little earlier in that first paragraph). So the passage isn't suggesting that natural selection is wrong (answer E), but that it needs to be looked at in a way other than the traditional way (answer D).

In other words, the bees aren't evidence against natural selection, but evidence for a particular view of natural selection!

[PresidentLSAT]

Hi,

I would love some feedback on my reasons for eliminating A through D.

A. I couldn't support this What we are told about what happened in the 60s is the inclusive fitness theory which is an explanation of a probably already existing phenomenon.

B. No support. Yes, we are told honeybees are nurtured by their siblings but we are given further information to justify the reciprocity of this nurturing.

C. This was a close call. Now looking back I don't even know why I considered it. The traditional theory still holds. Biologists haven't rejected it; it seems they've been open to other hypotheses and species behaviors that do not conform to the theory.

D. Evolution still proceeds by natural selection. Exceptions, and variations-if they exist-in this process does not make it untrue.

E. I landed here because the honey information doesn't conform to traditional thought so it requires further explanation.

[Robert Carroll]

PresidentLSAT,

Your explanations make sense to me. Well done!

Robert Carroll