I have 2 questions for you when you open shop tomorrow.
1.) PT64 RC Q19
Please explain why B is wrong and C is right.
Second time I've been asked this in 12 hours!
Alright, so first we're going to look at the question, as that trips people up.
This is essentially a Logical Reasoning Flaw question, asking you to hop inside B's head and point out a/the flaw that underlies A's argument. Why am I saying that it has to underlie A's argument? Because on the LSAT, when it tells me that two things are alike (and it's not asking me to question that comparison), I treat them as alike in all relevant factors. Here, it tells me to consider arguments like A's argument - since it's telling me to do that, then I have to consider an argument like A's argument to be an argument that mirrors A's argument in all relevant factors. A flaw/assumption underlying an argument is certainly relevant. So if you see another question like this on RC, then just drop the 'like' and consider it to be talking about Passage A.
So we've got the question down - have B point out the/a flaw in A's argument.
Let's look at B first and see why it's wrong.
B is unbelievably strong - ANY action was NECESSARILY orchestrated. That's a tall order. Does A back up that ANY action was orchestrated by the genes for self-propagation? I'd have to say no to this question. I know that evo. psych. has taught me to examine
a given human activity through the lens of successful reproduction, but that doesn't translate to being able to always find an answer to the question of how that behavior helps reproductive success. If I'm going to back up a statement like 'any action', I need the author to use language explicitly as strong. Since A doesn't make a statement that strong, then answer choice B can't be describing a flaw in A's argument. Since I need my answer to both be a part of A's argument AND something B would regard as a flaw, it can't be right.
Meta point - be wary of strong language on RC answer choices. These are academic papers, and academics are famously wishy-washy, even when they believe something 100%.
C, on the other hand, seems to be the point of contention. A argues that we can view these actions (altruistic ones) as a means of enhancing evolutionary success. From this, he concludes that we should look at it this way, and it explains it well. B thinks this is hogwash. So A definitely does assume that if something can be explained in evolutionary terms, it should be and the explanation is a good one. B, on the other hand, thinks that's a bad way to argue (and I'd agree).
2.) PT64 LR2 Q22
I think I understand why C is right, but I would like to hear what your reasoning is.
First off, a logical force analysis of the stimulus. I have a bunch of wishy-washy language (typically selected, almost never, guided by). When I've got soft language like that, I'm looking for a weaker answer choice. On top of that, these Soft Must Be True questions (most strongly supported, best illustrated, etc...) inherently want a weaker answer choice. Since I'm doubling up on that, I will throw out answer choice B and E definitely (I give them a read after seeing they're strong - B has an any, E has The only, and nothing in them makes me feel like I have enough power to support them) and D probably (it has a most in there, which is stronger than I want; I might be able to back it up with an almost never and a typically; however, I read it and see that it says most problems being solved are problems that politicians and business leaders want solved, and I only know that typically they're selected by scientists, so that's out).
So I've got A and C left.
A tells me when scientists are going to be called on to solve a problem. I know who sometimes calls on them to solve a problem, but I don't know when or why. So A is giving me an explanation for something I know, but an explanation usually isn't the answer to an implication family question (unless it's the only possible explanation, like if you're told that a car company sold the same amount of cars but decreased its market share - then, the other companies MUST HAVE sold more cars, no way around it). Here, however, it's just explaining the rate of asking them to solve it, which isn't necessary to my argument and certainly isn't backed up by information that they're called upon to solve stuff at time.
So I've got C by process of elimination. However, I'm going to attack it from the other end and see how we could guess at C before going to the answer choices.
By a wide margin, the strongest statement in the stimulus is the first one - the public FALSELY believes that scientists can solve any problem. The language in the other sentences is weaker, as noted above. This, however, is an absolute statement of judgment made by the author about the success rates of scientists. It's strong, and when I have a statement that is stronger than the rest of the stimulus in a soft must be true question, I know it's going to play into the answer choice. It's either going to stand on its own and give me the answer, or use the rest of the stimulus in an indirect way.
Here, I'm expecting it to use the rest in an indirect way. Why don't I expect it to give me the answer by itself? Because it's not really comparative (something is the most effective, or the surest way, etc..., which is a huge key that I'm going to just need to use it for the answer, or at least mostly just use it), it's not a rule (if you see a diagrammable rule in a soft Must Be True, it's probably, by itself, going to apply to an answer), and if I tried to come up with another statement based off of it, all I'd get is, "Scientists are sometimes unable to solve a problem." Well, that has to be true, but it's so obvious that I don't expect it to be an answer. Those rules and comparisons, on the other hand, let me say a any number of things in other situations, because I can apply the general rule to any situation, or I can compare anything else to the most efficient way and find it wanting.
So now I think for a second - scientists aren't gods, according to this guy, and they have some problems they can't solve. However, they seem to be doing a good job of fooling others when they get to pick the problems they solve. If I put those two ideas together, I would say something like, "Scientists wouldn't seem so great if they weren't allowed to pick which problems they were solving." That's what C says, so that's my answer.
PS: The answer you gave me to my last question helped me be able to discern the right answer on a similar question on PT64 (LR2 #18)