One might expect that within a particular species, any individuals tha

The researchers don't think that the analogy between aging in the context of natural selection and in the context of household appliances is good.
Therefore our answer should explain how 'natural selection aging' and 'household aging' are different.
We'll look for such an answer, a Logical approach.

(D) is the direct answer: organisms can repair themselves while appliances can not.

really a great question on CR ; need to read in b/w lines here to understand the premise;
author has given a reference of wear and tear of machines and aging of product , this link has been rightly mentioned and supports the argument in option D ;
Organisms are capable of maintenance and self-repair and can remedy much of the damage that they accumulate.
IMO D

I was a little thrown off initially after reading some fancy stuff such as extreme longevity, but a lesson to learn was that it made no difference to reach the final answer.


One might expect that within a particular species, any individuals that managed to slow down the aging process would leave more offspring. Natural selection should therefore favor extreme longevity—but this does not seem to be the case. A possible explanation is that aging is a product of the inevitable wear and tear of living, similar to how household appliances generally accumulate faults that lead to their eventual demise. However, most researchers do not find this analogy satisfactory as an explanation.

The question in a way is asking us to strengthen researcher's position and best way to do that is by weakening the potency of the example citied in the question stem.


Option D captures that decently,


D. Organisms are capable of maintenance and self-repair and can remedy much of the damage that they accumulate.

The option nicely differentiates the two entities by avvering that humans are capable of maintenance and self-repair and can handle the damange the accumulate themselves while a machine/appliance cannot . Hence, the explanation presented is amiss.

Which of the following would, if true, provide the strongest explanation for the researchers' reaction?

A. Some organisms are capable of living much longer than other organisms.

This fact is not in dispute. Therefore, It is irrelevant to discuss.

B. Some organisms reproduce very quickly despite having short lifespans.

Very quickly does not mean more. Also, the disputing fact is analogy drawn by the author and not the fast reproduction of some organisms.

C. There are several ways of defining “extreme longevity,” and according to some definitions it occurs frequently.

Irrelevant. We are not concerned about definitions.

D. Organisms are capable of maintenance and self-repair and can remedy much of the damage that they accumulate.

Correct : Author draws a conclusion between household items life span and wear & tear and the living beings. This choice shows that we can't compare the two.

E. Some organisms generate much more wear and tear on their bodies than others.

Such comparison is not required as researchers are not disputing this fact.
_________________

Which answer choice breaks the analogy of living organisms to household appliances? Which answer choice shows the difference between aging organisms and aging household appliances?


Doesn't relate to the question.


Doesn't relate to the question.


Doesn't relate to the question. Irrelevant.


Great. Organisms can heal themselves, but household appliances can't.


Doesn't relate to the question.

Hey i could reach to the answer stem easily but i couldnt understand why do we have this statement in the premise.

"any individuals that managed to slow down the aging process would leave more offspring"

it doesnt even set up the context of the question

Type: explain the researchers reaction

Reaction: Researchers do not see ''analogy'' drawn as a satisfactory explanation of ''ageing''

Analogy: aging is a product of the inevitable wear and tear of living, similar to how household appliances generally accumulate faults that lead to their eventual demise.


A. Some organisms are capable of living much longer than other organisms. - not relevant to the ''analogy''
B. Some organisms reproduce very quickly despite having short lifespans. - ''rate of reproduction'' is not relevant to the ''analogy'' cited.
C. There are several ways of defining “extreme longevity,” and according to some definitions it occurs frequently. - ''definitions'' of longevity is irrelevant to the ''analogy''
D. Organisms are capable of maintenance and self-repair and can remedy much of the damage that they accumulate. - if organisms are capable of maintenance and self-repair and can remedy much of the damage that they accumulate, then they make themselves strikingly different from the ''analogy'' cited in the passage. (D) supports the researches' reaction. Hence, (D) is the right answer choice.

E. Some organisms generate much more wear and tear on their bodies than others. - 'depth' or ''different levels'' of damage is not relevant to the ''analogy''cited.

One might expect that within a particular species, any individuals that managed to slow down the aging process would leave more offspring. Natural selection should therefore favor extreme longevity—but this does not seem to be the case. A possible explanation is that aging is a product of the inevitable wear and tear of living, similar to how household appliances generally accumulate faults that lead to their eventual demise. However, most researchers do not find this analogy satisfactory as an explanation.

Which of the following would, if true, provide the strongest explanation for the researchers' reaction?

There is a comparison between human longevity vs household appliance longevity


Only contenders are - B & D

B - Some organisms reproduce very quickly despite having short lifespans. - Very quickly doesn't mean more.The contradicting factor is analogy not the reproduction rate

D - Organisms are capable of maintenance and self-repair and can remedy much of the damage that they accumulate. - This talks about the analogy and the wear and tear

We are explaining why this analogy doesn't work in researcher's opinions, NOT proving why "this does not seem to be the case" that "natural selection should favor extreme longevity"

With that in mind (prove analogy don't work): D, organisms can repair themselves, and house appliances cannot --> they are not even comparable!! Therefore, analogy won't work.

If we were to prove that "natural selection should favor extreme longevity", then B might work (not 100% sure) because B proves this point by presenting a counterexample --> some organisms with short life can reproduce quickly --> it's not necessarily true that natural selection only prefers long life.
_________________

Conclusion: “most researchers do not find this analogy satisfactory as an explanation”
Prethink: What is the disconnect here? During the read, it sounded off. Why? The stimulus is comparing life’s aging to that of a household appliance. There are a lot more factors with aging in life. Maybe the answer could be associated with another factor that isn’t highlighted within the stimulus.
Which of the following would, if true, provide the strongest explanation for the researchers' reaction?

A. Some organisms are capable of living much longer than other organisms.
One sided/irrelevant – we don’t care about a comparison between some organisms with other organisms. We want to know the applicability of organism’s lives to appliance’s lives.

B. Some organisms reproduce very quickly despite having short lifespans.
Out of scope – Regardless if some organisms do or don’t, this doesn’t impact the conclusion (that the analogy is not satisfactory as an explanation – for aging = product of inevitable wear and tear of living, similar to household appliances). This doesn’t directly affect the conclusion at hand, you need to make logical leaps for this to be even remotely true. Moreover, what does “very quickly” even mean?

C. There are several ways of defining “extreme longevity,” and according to some definitions it occurs frequently.
Out of scope – This isn’t a relevant portion of the stimulus. It isn’t directly relevant to the conclusion.

D. Organisms are capable of maintenance and self-repair and can remedy much of the damage that they accumulate.
This is a third element. The analogy between the aging of living organisms and household appliances isn’t the best because there are other factors at play. Living organisms have all these tings that they are capable of while household appliances clearly do not.

E. Some organisms generate much more wear and tear on their bodies than others.
One sided/irrelevant – we don’t care about a comparison between some organisms with other organisms. We want to know the applicability of organism’s lives to appliance’s lives.

Hey Rahul,


The first statement "One might expect that within a particular species, any individuals that managed to slow down the aging process would leave more offspring." does set up the context of the argument.


Think about it, the second line - Natural selection should therefore favor extreme longevity—but this does not seem to be the case.

The first statement provides the premise for the BOLD part. Otherwise, why would the author say that "Natural selection should therefore favor extreme longevity", there must be some reason why the author gives us this information.


Thank you
_________________

One might expect that within a particular species, any individuals that managed to slow down the aging process would leave more offspring. Natural selection should therefore favor extreme longevity—but this does not seem to be the case. A possible explanation is that aging is a product of the inevitable wear and tear of living, similar to how household appliances generally accumulate faults that lead to their eventual demise. However, most researchers do not find this analogy satisfactory as an explanation.

-Natural selection should favour longevity (since individuals who live longer leave more offspring)
-Natural selection does not seem to favour longevity
-Explanation for phenomenon is that aging is a product of wear and tear, similar to how appliances accumulate faults leading to their end of life
-Most researchers do not like the analogy

A strengthener here would be something that points out why the analogy is inappropriate…perhaps because appliances are missing some feature of the aging process or that they are different in some fundamental way. After all, you’re comparing technology with living organisms.

Which of the following would, if true, provide the strongest explanation for the researchers' reaction?

A. Some organisms are capable of living much longer than other organisms.
-irrelevant
B. Some organisms reproduce very quickly despite having short lifespans.
-explains why natural selection does not necessarily favour longer lifespans…after all the job of ensuring species propagation can be done with less resources (i.e. living shorter lives)
C. There are several ways of defining “extreme longevity,” and according to some definitions it occurs frequently.
-this choice seems to question the truth of one of the premises…OUT
D. Organisms are capable of maintenance and self-repair and can remedy much of the damage that they accumulate.
-Correct; organisms are…well…living…this choice tells us what some of those features are that distinguish organisms from appliances which by all accounts don’t self-repair and maintain (getting fixed is besides the point…that’s not an example of self-regulation)…simply this choice justifies the researchers reaction that the comparison is inappropriate
E. Some organisms generate much more wear and tear on their bodies than others.
-plausible, but besides the point
_________________

One might expect that within a particular species, any individuals that managed to slow down the aging process would leave more offspring.
any individuals that can grow slowly shall be able to produce more children in its life time

Natural selection should therefore favor extreme longevity—but this does not seem to be the case.
Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change
So Natural selection seems to the best way for longevity .
why?

A possible explanation is that aging is a product of the inevitable wear and tear of living, similar to how household appliances generally accumulate faults that lead to their eventual demise.
Reference to aging on products such as household appliances

However, most researchers do not find this analogy satisfactory as an explanation.
why the comparison is not right?

In summary, why the natural process for species and products can not be compared?

OptionD gives the correct distinction as compared to other options.

I hope it helps.

KarishmaB
I couldn't understand how first 2 lines are related. Please help.

"One might expect that within a particular species, any individuals that managed to slow down the aging process would leave more offspring.
Natural selection should therefore favor extreme longevity—but this does not seem to be the case.

My Understanding - Organisms that are more adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and that's why this concept supports longer life. How this is related to 1st line."

Thanks!

The researchers' dissatisfaction with the analogy between aging and the wear and tear of household appliances suggests that they find it inadequate in explaining the phenomenon of aging. To provide the strongest explanation for their reaction, we need to identify a statement that supports their skepticism.

Among the options provided, (D) "Organisms are capable of maintenance and self-repair and can remedy much of the damage that they accumulate" would provide the strongest explanation. If organisms have mechanisms for maintenance and self-repair that can counteract the damage accumulated over time, it challenges the notion that aging is solely a result of wear and tear. This suggests that there may be other factors contributing to the aging process that the analogy fails to capture.