Q13

[Shiggins]

I first got it down to C, D, E and chose E. In E doesn't Reichart make predictions on the spiders. Is it bc it says scientists (plural). D I believe is wrong bc it never touches on Evo game theory or suggesting an alternative to the Trad theory. If someone could help clarify this.

[LSAT-Chang]

I first got it down to C, D, E and chose E. In E doesn't Reichart make predictions on the spiders. Is it bc it says scientists (plural). D I believe is wrong bc it never touches on Evo game theory or suggesting an alternative to the Trad theory. If someone could help clarify this.

Here are my reasons for eliminating D and E, and choosing C:

(D) - I think there are two reasons why this answer choice doesn't work. First, like you said above, it is too narrow in scope. The passage devotes at least 3/4 of it in explaining how the traditional theory doesn't account for A. aperta, so it wouldn't make sense to have a statement solely about traditional theory be our "main idea." Second, we have no evidence to support the idea that the traditional theory cannot explain the fighting behavior of most species. All we know is that the evolutionary game theory fits better than the traditional theory in explaining A. aperta's fighting behavior -- we know nothing else about other species!

(E) - We have no evidence to support the idea that the evolutionary game theory is currently in use by scientists to predict the behavior of spiders in site selection. This was a tempting answer for me at first (I was down to C and E) until I noticed that the only thing we get from this passage is that Riechert argues that this recently developed model (i.e. evolutionary game theory) provides a closer fit to explaining A. aperta's fighting behavior than the traditional theory. Like you pointed out as well, "scientists" is too broad of a generalization to make from what we learn in the passage.

(C) - I don't like this answer 100% since it honestly didn't sound like one of those typical correct main point answers, but it is definitely a safe bet since the language/tone all seem to fit well with the passage. The idea that the evolutionary game theory "may be useful" in explaining the behavior of certain spiders (i.e. A. aperta) during territorial disputes is something we can prove and is a very general way of summarizing the whole passage since the author never claims that this is in fact the CORRECT theory but just implicitly agrees and if you look at the last paragraph, it is all just "predictions" made by Riechart - nothing has been conclusively proven. So I think we can safely conclude that the author belives the evolutionary game theory may be useful in explaining the behavior of certain spiders during territorial disputes.

Just in case others were curious to know about (A) and (B)..

(A) - I eliminated this answer choice because I didn't like the equal emphasis given to "classical game theory" and "humans" since that is definitely NOT our main point. It sounds like the main point is both about "humans" and "animals" when it is mainly just about A. aperta.

(B) - First, WAY too narrow in scope. This can't be our "main" point. Second, we have no evidence to support that A. aperta in grassland habitats and riparian habitats exhibit an unusually wide variety of fighting behaviors in territorial disputes. So I guess this is wrong on two counts.

[ohthatpatrick]

My, my! Nothing for a teacher to add here. GREAT explanation!

[T.J.]

As for (d), in the last paragraph, Riechert predicts the FACTORs that'll influence behaviors, not just BEHAVIORs.