Q18

[robowarren]

Hi,

Could someone talk about why the answer is D and not C. I might have been staring at this too long, but I just can't see why D is the answer. Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Hi, there.

To answer this question, we should first look at the 1st paragraph of psg. B and re-acquaint ourselves with what that author meant by 'conspiracy theory'.

"it explains behavior by imputing an interest (the proliferation of genes) that the agent of the behavior does not openly acknowledge, or indeed, is not even aware of".

The author then provides the example of a parent having an interest in his/her child's well-being ... by using the modifier "unsurprising" to describe this interest, the author is suggesting that a parent being interested in his/her child's well-being is kinda obvious and self-explanatory. Meanwhile, evolutionary psychologists explain this parental interest as "genes' conspiracy to propagate themselves".

This is what (D) is referencing from psg. A. If you read lines 23-26, you see that A's author was giving the example of "a mother's rushing to help her injured child" and then explaining that using the language from choice (D).

So lines 39-42 in psg. B pretty much explicitly label the example+interpretation in lines 23-26 as "a conspiracy".

===other answers

(A) this sounds on the road to "imputing an interest that the agent is unaware of", but there are two problems. 1., "seeking to examine behavior from the point of view of evolution" isn't as pointed as what the author is complaining about (that evol. psychologists try to explain all behavior as resulting from genetic motivations). 2., the question stem asks "which answer exemplies the "conspiracy theory". At best choice (A) describes the "conspiracy theory". (D) provides an example of psg. A using the "conspiracy theory".

(B), (C), and (E) do not provide an example of "imputing an interest that the agent is unaware of".

They are all just facts about early humans, the meaning of "altruism", and a difficult behavior for evolutionary psychologists to explain.

Q18 is asking for an example of the "conspiracy theory", which would have to involve how evolutionary psychologists interpret the facts.

Hope this helps. Let me know if you have lingering issues.

[rlongtin]

It seems though that D is insufficient in actually exemplifying a "conspiracy theory". Summarized, it seems to just claim that genes can be propagated through unselfish actions. It doesn't input any interest into the individual, in that it doesn't claim that this possibility of propagating results, through evolution, in the development of altruistic action in people. It merely re-states a possibility which isn't even in dispute. If it says that genes, through promoting their self-propagation, developed psychological states that led to altruism, then the answer would be spot on. How it is however, doesn't seems anywhere close to feasible.

I can kind of understand how A doesn't work, but it seems that viewing actions through the lens of the theory of evolution is closer to a conspiracy than D (in that they attribute evolutionary mechanisms as the interests the person in unknowingly acting by).

[gplaya123]

Could someone go in depth with c?

[johnscottwilsonsr]

Could someone go in depth with c?

Bump,

Someone please go over C a little more. Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

There's a slight grammatical distinction between how a previous poster summarized (D) and what it actually says.

To say "genes can be propagated through unselfish actions" sounds passive. As you're noting, it sounds like unselfish actions sometimes happen to help out genes.

Meanwhile, the actual quote of (D) is ACTIVELY phrased. "Genes may promote their self-propagation through unselfish actions."

If you turn (D) into passive wording, I agree, it doesn't sound like the 'conspiracy theory'.

'Conspiracy theory' typically means that certain actions/events happened, but not for the reasons we think they did ... or someone / something behind the scene is secretly pulling the strings.

(D) really captures this. The author of psg. B would say that looking out for your kid is happening for the reason of caring about your kid. The 'conspiracy theorists' of psg. A would say that GENES are secretly pulling the strings, making you want to protect your kid so that the genes in your kid will be preserved.

In regards to (C) and the other answers, let's look at the set of answers from this point of view: "Which of these five answers is something the author of psg. B would DISAGREE with?"

Why am I rephrasing the question that way? Because the author of B uses the phrase 'conspiracy theory' in a negative way. Whichever answer choice is actually exemplifying the 'conspiracy theory' should therefore be something that the author of B would view negatively.

Would the author of B disagree with (A)?
No. Maybe the author would disagree with (A) if it said that "evolutionary psychologists SHOULD seek to examine human behavior ...", but the author of B would certainly agree that they DO seek to examine human behavior as it relates to evolution.

(to go a little deeper here, the author of B wouldn't even necessarily disagree that evolutionary psychologists SHOULD examine human behavior as it relates to evolution. He might be totally in agreement about that. He could still disagree with some of the conclusions / theories that evolutionary psychologists come up with, even though he agrees with their overall focus of study)

Would the author of B disagree with (B)?
Seemingly not. The author of B would certainly grant that evolutionary psychologists believe that animal behavior seeks to maximize the propagation of genes and the author of B would agree that altruism involves helping someone ELSE more than yourself. So we can all see why this behavior is tricky for evolutionary psychology to explain. The author of B is mainly disagreeing with HOW evolutionary psychologists explain altruism.

Would the author of B disagree with (C)?
No, that's just the definition of altruism. The author of B would say that we sometimes behave altruistically because we simply care about the well-being of someone else. The author B thinks the 'conspiracy theory' is saying that GENES secretly program us to behave altruistically.

Would the author of B disagree with (D)?
More so than any of the other answers. THIS explanation for altruism is what psg. B primarily goes after.

Would the author of B disagree with (E)?
No, this is clearly just a fact.

Again, (A), (B), (C), and (E) are essentially just facts. (D) is the only THEORY up here.

Hope this helps.

[johnscottwilsonsr]

Again, (A), (B), (C), and (E) are essentially just facts. (D) is the only THEORY up here.

Hope this helps.

Ok, I will push the 'I believe button" here (US Navy term). So, when the question asks for an assertion, we can usually anticipate the answer to be an argument/theory and not just the repetition of a fact.


NOTE TO SELF: the LSAT and the RC is much more concerned with arguments than with facts. Read accordingly.