Meerkat "sentinels," so-called because they watch for predators while

Premise 1: Meerkat "sentinels," so-called because they watch for predators while other meerkat group members forage, almost never fall victim to those predators, yet the foragers often do.

Premise 2: This advantage accruing to the sentinel does not mean that its watchful behavior is entirely self-interested.

Conclusion: the sentinel's behavior is an example of animal behavior motivated at least in part by altruism.

Evidence: The loud bark emitted by the sentinel as it dashes for the cover of the nearest hole alerts other group
members to the presence of danger.

(A) appealing to evidence that tends to undermine rather than support the argument's conclusion

The evidence does not undermine the argument's conclusion. Instead it supports it. This can be eliminated.

(B) appealing to evidence that presupposes the truth of the argument's conclusion

The evidence in no way presupposes the truth of the conclusion

(C) inferring solely from an effect produced by an action that a purpose of the action is to produce that effect

It is true that the loud bark emitted by the sentinel as it dashes for the cover of the nearest hole alerts other group members to the presence of danger. But this cannot be a proof as to the sentinel's altruistic behaviour. Assuming that the meerkat sentinel barks in order to alert the foragers to the presence of danger is the questionable reasoning technique applied in the argument. It can bark for other reasons also, for eg: it might be just scared (as also stated by NHUANH).

D) inferring solely from the claim that the behavior of a meerkat sentinel is not entirely selfish that this behavior is entirely altruistic

This is out of scope.

(E) concluding that a claim is false on the grounds that insufficient evidence has been offered to support it

The argument does not conclude that the claim is false.

It's C. This is a classic case of spinning the evidence to make it consistent with the conclusion even though such evidence doesn't necessarily follow logically.

Meerkat "sentinels," so-called because they watch for predators while other meerkat group members forage, almost never fall victim to those predators, yet the foragers often do. This advantage accruing to the sentinel does not mean that its watchful behavior is entirely self-interested. On the contrary, the sentinel's behavior is an example of animal behavior motivated at least in part by altruism. The loud bark emitted by the sentinel as it dashes for the cover of the nearest hole alerts other group members to the presence of danger.

Which one of the following is a questionable reasoning technique employed in the argument?

(A) appealing to evidence that tends to undermine rather than support the argument's conclusion

(B) appealing to evidence that presupposes the truth of the argument's conclusion

(C) inferring solely from an effect produced by an action that a purpose of the action is to produce that effect CORRECT

(D) inferring solely from the claim that the behavior of a meerkat sentinel is not entirely selfish that this behavior is entirely altruistic

(E) concluding that a claim is false on the grounds that insufficient evidence has been offered to support it

The competition is among A, B, and C.

(A) appealing to evidence that tends to undermine rather than support the argument's conclusion
- Close, but Incorrect. It may seem that the premise is actually weakening the argument. However, that is not the case.

(B) appealing to evidence that presupposes the truth of the argument's conclusion
- No. This is not a circular argument in any way.

(C) inferring solely from an effect produced by an action that a purpose of the action is to produce that effect
- Correct. Ask the question: what if the sentinels have NO INTEREST in alerting other? It's just that they are scared to death and scream in fear and run. This would weaken the claim made by the Author.

Correct: C

Which clause is the conclusion here?

This one: This advantage accruing to the sentinel does not mean that its watchful behavior is entirely self-interested.

or this one: the sentinel's behavior is an example of animal behavior motivated at least in part by altruism.

Please explain.

Blue text is the conclusion. The other counter offered is authors reasoning that is questionable.

­Meerkat "sentinels," so-called because they watch for predators while other meerkat group members forage, almost never fall victim to those predators, yet the foragers often do. This advantage accruing to the sentinel does not mean that its watchful behavior is entirely self-interested. On the contrary, the sentinel's behavior is an example of animal behavior motivated at least in part by altruism. The loud bark emitted by the sentinel as it dashes for the cover of the nearest hole alerts other group members to the presence of danger.

Which one of the following is a questionable reasoning technique employed in the argument?

(A) appealing to evidence that tends to undermine rather than support the argument's conclusion - WRONG.

(B) appealing to evidence that presupposes the truth of the argument's conclusion - WRONG.

(C) inferring solely from an effect produced by an action that a purpose of the action is to produce that effect - CORRECT. Round trips the cause and effect.

(D) inferring solely from the claim that the behavior of a meerkat sentinel is not entirely selfish that this behavior is entirely altruistic - WRONG. Goes extreme in its claim that ruins the choice.

(E) concluding that a claim is false on the grounds that insufficient evidence has been offered to support it - WRONG. Nowhere it says or suggests that.

Answer C.