Hi officiisnobis,E is the classic trap answer here, and the discussion above (AnkithaSrinivas vs. RakshithTN) circled the right instinct without quite naming why E fails. Let me pin it down.
E says the passage discusses a tech strategy that is
"highly similar" to what some animals do. There are two problems with that phrase.
Problem 1: "highly similar" overreachesLook at what the two strategies actually are:
-
The animals' strategy - mimicking the
appearance of another species to fool predators and survive (the butterfly/monarch example).
-
The human strategy - copying a biological
mechanism to build better products (spider silk stronger than steel, the brittle star's light-focusing).
The passage links human tech to nature ("biomimicry is not an invention of modern scientists but is of the natural world itself"), but linked is not the same as
highly similar. One is about looking like something else to stay alive; the other is about replicating a mechanism to make a product. So "highly similar" claims more than the text supports.
Problem 2: it misses the passage's real focusThe passage builds toward inventors who "recognize the value of nature's designs," ending emphatically on silk and the brittle-star lens. Its purpose is to
describe nature's designs as a source for innovation - which is exactly C. E instead makes the
similarity between two strategies the point, which isn't where the passage's momentum lands.
A quick test to feel it: swap E's phrasing to "...a strategy that
takes inspiration from some animal species." Now it would be defensible - but that's a much weaker claim than "highly similar." That gap between "inspired by" and "highly similar" is the exact overreach that kills E.
Notice this is the same reason C wins in the thread's C-vs-E debate: C's hedged "
might be used" stays inside the text, while E's "
highly similar" steps past it.
Answer: Cofficiisnobis
Hi
KarishmaB Can you help?
For question 2 how can we eliminate option E?