Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT134 S4 P3 Q14 Explanation

Evolutionary Psychology

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

TopicsMethodScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Start practicing free

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

Passage A Evolutionary psychology has taught us to examine human behavior from the standpoint of the theory of evolution—to explain a given type of human behavior by examining how it contributes to the reproductive success of individuals exhibiting the behavior, and thereby to the proliferation of the genetic material responsible for causing an individual expends energy or other valuable resources promoting the welfare of another individual?

The answer probably lies in the psychological experiences of identification and empathy. Such experiences could have initially arisen in response to cues (like physical resemblance) that indicated the presence of shared genetic material in human ancestors. The psychological states provoked by these cues could have increased the chances of related individuals’ receiving child; genes promoting their own self-propagation may thus operate through instinctive actions that appear unselfish.

Since human ancestors lived in small, kin-based groups, the application of altruistic mechanisms to the entire group would have promoted the propagation of the genes responsible for those mechanisms. Later, these mechanisms may have come to apply to humans who are not kin when mechanisms may have arisen within a genetically “selfish” system.

Passage B Evolutionary psychology is a kind of conspiracy theory; that is, 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. Thus, what seemed to be out to be your genes’ conspiracy to propagate themselves.

Such arguments can appear persuasive on the face of it. According to some evolutionary psychologists, an interest in the proliferation of genes explains monogamous families in animals whose offspring mature slowly. Human offspring mature slowly; and, at least in numerical terms, our species favors monogamous families. Evolutionary psychologists take of our interest in propagating our genes. Are they right?

Maybe yes, maybe no; this kind of inference needs to be handled with great care. There are, most often, all sorts of interests that would explain any given behavior. What is needed to make it decisive that a particular interest explains a particular behavior is that the behavior would be reasonable only after all; there must be some things that one cares for just for their own sakes.

What this question is testing

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
14.

The approaches toward evolutionary psychology exhibited by the two authors differ in which one of

Answer choices

  1. Reversed, if anything2% picked this

    The author of passage A is more interested in examining the logical implications of evolutionary psychology than the

    The author of A is more interested in using EP to explain human/animal behavior. But that author doesn't seem to care about logical implications. If anything, psg B brings up that stuff more, starting its second paragraph with an assessment of how persuasive an argument seems at face value, and starting its third paragraph with "can we make this inference"? (There's even some conditional logic in Passage B!)

  2. Correct45% picked this

    The author of passage A is more committed to the principles of evolutionary psychology than the author

    Why this is right

    This seems fair. Since psg A is determined to use EP in order to explain altruism, while psg B is willing to consider other types of explanations, we could say that A is more committed to EP than B is. What are the principles of EP? The first sentence of Psg A says that EP teaches us "to examine human behavior from the standpoint of the theory of evolution -- to explain a type of human behavior by how it contributes to reproductive success". That is exactly what passage A does when it comes to altruism / a mom saving her kid. Passage B is not committed to explaining human behavior by how it contributes to reproductive success. She thinks that some things are cared for just for their own sake. (last sentence of passage)

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

  3. Reversed1% picked this

    The author of passage A is more willing to consider nonevolutionary explanations for human behavior than the author

    This is the opposite of what we were looking for. Passage B is the one considering nonevolutionary epxlanations.

  4. Out of Scope: general evo. theory47% picked this

    The author of passage B is more skeptical of evolutionary theory in general than the author

    This seems very close to the correct answer, but we would say that passage B is more skeptical of evolutionary psychology, not evolutionary theory in general. Evolutionary theory in general is the idea that specific traits arise in species most often because that trait added survival value, and so through the course of many generations of replication, that gene was more likely to be reproduced each time. Passage B isn't disputing that in any spot we can put our finger on. She's just saying, "I think evolutionary psychologists might be taking it too far by insisting that every human behavior has to be described as being done because it increases survival value or chance of replication"

  5. Too Strong: critical of motives5% picked this

    The author of passage B is more critical of the motives of evolutionary psychologists than the author

    Yikes, this one also seems tempting. The problem, I guess, is that "critical of their motives" is a little too accusatory or out of scope. The author doesn't think that evolutionary psychologists are bad people who have malign intentions. She would probably agree that evolutionary psychologists are too stubborn about trying to explain everything in terms of genes. And if I were trying to defend this answer, I would say, "Isn't it their motive to explain everything in terms of genes? So isn't the author of B being more critical or skeptical of that?" But we need to be less "could I make that work" and more "what does that expression normally convey when we read it" here. When you're critical of someone's motives, you're saying that someone is doing X for the wrong reasons. Our author isn't saying that. She asks at the end of the 2nd paragraph, "is the conclusion that EP's draw from this evidence right? Maybe yes, maybe no. This is a tricky inference." Her critique is more about the logical flaws / overlooked possibilities of the evolutionary psychologists. She's not calling them conspiracy mongers who are doing this for the wrong reason.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill
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