Reading Comprehension

PT127 · S4 · P2 · Q11 Inclusive Fitness Theory

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Mechanisms for recognizing kin are found throughout the plant and animal kingdoms, regardless of an organism's social or mental complexity.

Topic

Why kin recognition exists among animals and how it can be explained by different evolutionary theories.

Framework

Answer / Explain

Main Point

Scientists have several explanations for why animals recognize their kin: inclusive fitness theory proposes it’s to protect their own genetic legacy by helping relatives, but in some cases (like with tiger salamanders), avoiding kin may purely be for self-preservation to reduce risk of disease. *The Most Valuable Sentence is probably the last sentence of P2: and the last sentence of P3: *

P1: Introduction to Inclusive Fitness Theory

All kinds of organisms can recognize their kin, and one important theory (inclusive fitness) says this happens so creatures can increase the survival of their own genes—not just through offspring, but through relatives, too. This theory helps explain behaviors that don’t seem to benefit an individual directly, like sterile worker bees helping their family.

P2: Applying Inclusive Fitness Theory to Cannibalism

This theory is supported by studies of cannibal tadpoles: they usually avoid eating their relatives, which makes sense if they’re trying to protect their own genetic legacy. Occasionally, ultra-hungry tadpoles will eat siblings anyway—implying that self-preservation can sometimes override this behavior.

P3: Alternative Explanation—Disease Avoidance

But inclusive fitness isn’t the only answer! For tiger salamander cannibals, avoiding kin may actually just be about not catching deadly diseases, since they’re more likely to get sick from eating relatives. For them, kin recognition may not be about helping family, just avoiding illness and preserving their own life.

11.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the function of the last sentence of the second paragraph?

  1. Correct

    to draw attention to behavior

    Why this is right

    Gross. This is definitely not language most of us would predict, but it resonates with the idea that the final sentence of the 2nd paragraph is an exception to the general trend described in the rest of that paragraph. For the most part, the case of the cannibal tadpoles aligns with the inclusive fitness theory of "thou shalt protect thy relatives". But the final sentence shows that this is a general rule of thumb, not an absolute. This answer choice is reinforced by the 2nd to last sentence of the 2nd paragraph. And in general, when we're asked about the purpose / function of a detail, the correct answer most commonly reinforces the language of the preceding sentence. The preceding sentence is saying that "inclusive fitness theory offers at least a partial answer to why kin recognition develops". This answer is basically saying that an adequate theory of kin recognition will need to account for the exceptional cases in which an individual puts its own survival ahead of that of its kin.

    Skill tested: Local Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    74% picked this

  2. to explain why cannibals in

    Out of Scope: most species

    We have no idea what is true or false about cannibals in most species. The passage only discusses cannibalism within this one species of tadpoles.

    1% picked this

  3. to describe behavior that lends

    Opposite

    This behavior in the final sentence is an exception to the account of kin recognition presented in the 2nd paragraph. It's not lending support; it's adding a caveat / a qualification.

    18% picked this

  4. to offer evidence that the

    Too Strong: unexplainable

    The author is never supporting the desperate claim that spadefoot tadpole behavior is unexplainable. In fact, that final sentence surmises a potential explanation when it says, "apparently, (in choosing to eat their kin rather than starve), the cannibal is putting its own unique genetic makeup ahead of its siblings'."

    2% picked this

  5. to imply that the described

    Opposite

    The thrust of the 2nd paragraph is that cannibal tadpoles avoid eating their kin. That's why the author is even talking about them. This last sentence is just acknowledging an exception, a complication, a caveat. It's not trying to put THIS behavior center-stage.

    5% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free