RC Question 16 Explanation
DISCUSSION: Line 21 gives us one example of the type of universal law that determinist biologists are trying to discover.
___________
- This answer is about what the phrase may mean. But this question is asking why the author used that phrase. IT was an example of an attempt by the determinists to find a universal law similar to gravity.
- What uncertainty? The determinists are laying down a very certain rule. They say all life must struggle to survive.
- The main cause of controversy between the (two) schools of thought is whether there are universal laws for biology. Line 21 just gives us one example of such a law. Its the question of whether universal laws exist that is the main cause of controversy.
- CORRECT. Examples help us understand difficult concepts. Lines 20-25 give us examples to help clarify what determinists believe.
- No. Lines 21 is talking about determinists. They don’t think historical contingency should be part of biological science.
I really did not like A’s explanations given by others. So I kept diving in deep. A) actually IS supported, because the next part “that is the engine of all biological history” can be both interpreted as either author thinks, or all biologists thinks so (or both). So I went the route of “what if it DID mean that? How can A still be 100% a wrong answer?” Then I noticed this:
This was a trick question. Like literally a TRICK question.
It [u]HIGHLIGHTS[/u] “struggle for existence” as if THAT is what the question is asking about.
IT IS NOT!!!
The question is asking for not just simply “struggle for existence”, but the entire phrase “formulation of the notion of a universal struggle for existence”.
The highlight is literally there ONLY to throw you off. >:(
If the question simply said
“What is “struggle for existence” referring to?” –> then A is/can be correct.
But, it’s actually asking
“What is “make a universal law about struggle for existence” referring to?” –> then D is correct, only determinists are interested in finding this UNIVERSAL thing, NOT non-determinists.
Precisely right! My own explanation didn’t capture this, nice work. I’ll update the page. A is wrong because the question is about why this phrase is mentioned and not what it might mean.