Evolution does not always optimize

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: competing argument18% picked this

   citing an example to cast doubt on a

   We love the first three words! But, not so much the rest. There was no competing argument. That author isn't fighting anyone else's position. The author is citing an example to support a generalization.

   18%
2. B

   Out of Scope: analogy6% picked this

   employing an analogy in order to dispute

   The example of the male moose is meant to support the generalization in the first sentence. We could imagine an unspoken generalization, "Evolution always optimizes the survival of an organism", and yes the argument does employ a counterexample to dispute that generalization. But it doesn't employ an analogy. Disputing with analogy Jane is not going to love the Performing Arts school that accepted her, even though it's her dream school. After all, Jose got into his top choice law school and ended up hating it. Disputing with counterexample Getting into one's dream school does not always make one happy. After all, Jose got into his top choice law school and ended up hating it. Notice that we're using Jose identically in both cases. What makes the first case an analogy, and the second case a counterexample is the difference between the initial claims. Analogy = 2 specific stories that both embody the same (unspoken) general idea Example = 1 specific story that embodies an explicitly stated general idea

   6%
3. C

   Correct61% picked this

   challenging a general claim by presenting

   Why this is right

   We have to look at the conclusion in the first sentence and think, "Yes, he's challenging a general claim, because it would be a general claim to say evolution always optimizes survival of an organism, and he's challenge that." Is the evidence a counterexample, a case in which "evolution happened, but it didn't optimize the survival of an organism?" Sure the moose is a case where evolution caused the giant antlers and the giant antlers actually impede the moose's survival somewhat.

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

   61%
4. D

   Out of Scope: opposing view / dispute6% picked this

   disputing the relevance of an example thought to support an

   The author is presenting what she thinks is a very relevant example (or counterexample, technically). There isn't an opposing view named that the author is fighting. While the main conclusion (first sentence) is arguing against a general claim, that claim has been attributed to anyone, so we can't call it anyone's view. That invisible view has not presented a supposed example, and the author does not attack the relevance of that supposed example.

   6%
5. E

   Too Strong: self-contradictory8% picked this

   undermining a claim by showing that it

   The idea of contradictory (aka, inconsistent / incompatible) is wrong over 90% of the time we see it. Self-contradictions are incredibly rare. The author is undermining the claim "evolution always optimizes survival of an organism". If we were showing that this claim were self-contradictory, we'd be saying "That's crazy talk! After all, evolution literally means "to lessen the survival value of an organism", so how could it possibly optimize survival?"

   8%